2025:JHHC:15423 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3274 of 2025 Kameshwar Baitha, aged about 51 years, son of Late Sagar Baitha, resident of Bardari, P.O. Bishrampur, P.S. Ranka, District Garhwa (Jharkhand). … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P. Order No.05/Dated- 13.06.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Ranka P.S. Case No. 176 of 2023 (S.T. No.76 of 2024), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Garhwa. 3. As per F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that on 24.10.2023 at about 7:30 P.M., Kameshwar Baitha (petitioner) was abusing Vikash Baitha. When the informant and his mother went there and on seeing them Kameshwar Baitha went away. Subsequently, petitioner returned along with co-accused persons and it is alleged that Jitendra Baitha son of Kameshwar Baitha shot Malti Devi and Kameshwar Baitha and his wife gave several axe blows on Malti Devi due to which she succumbed to her injury. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that this is the second regular bail application of the petitioner and earlier his bail application being B.A. No.4369 of 2024 was rejected vide order dated 11.07.2024 on merits by this Court. It is further submitted that there is a land dispute and petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 31.10.2023. Charge has been 2025:JHHC:15423 2 framed on 16.03.2024. Out of 19 charge-sheeted witnesses, seven witnesses have been examined in this case. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is no fresh ground for entertaining the second bail application which is fit to be dismissed. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation coupled with the materials available against the petitioner and also in view of the fact that earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on merits and no fresh ground has been mentioned except that out of 19 charge-sheeted witnesses only seven witnesses have been examined and trial is going on. Considering the gravity of charges levelled against the petitioner and the direct involvement in the offence of murder and no fresh material on record, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner which stands rejected. 7. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receiving of this order, thereafter, petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his bail application, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin