2025:JHHC:15620 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3608 of 2025 Sattar Miyan, age 25 years old, son of Fenku Miya @ Feku Mian, resident of Bandua, P.O. & P.S. – Chainpur, District – Palamau at Daltonganj. ….. Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party WITH B.A. No. 3798 of 2025 Charku Mian @ Raushan Miyan @ Charaku Miyan @ Charkh Mian @ Charkhu, age 23 years old, son of Latif Miyan, resident of Garda, P.O. & P.S. – Chainpur, District – Palamau at Daltonganj. ….. Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. [In both cases]. For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, A.P.P. [In B.A. No. 3608/2025] Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate. [In B.A. No. 3798/2025] --------- Order No. 04/Dated: 13th June, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 279 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No. 182 of 2024 (S.T. No. 200 of 2024), registered for the offence under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Palamau. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that earlier the bail applications of the petitioners were rejected twice by this Court and while rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioners, liberty was granted to the petitioners to renew their prayer for bail after two months, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period. 2025:JHHC:15620 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in terms of the liberty, the petitioners have renewed their prayer for bail after expiry of two months. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 14.11.2023. Petitioners undertake to co- operate in the trial of the case and shall remain 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 petitioners may be enlarged on bail 6. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and has submitted that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioners were rejected by this Court and there is no fresh ground to reconsider the same. 7. It appears that in terms of order dated 02.05.2025, the status report of the case was called for and the same has been received. It is reported that the tentative period to conclude the trial is one month. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence and also the status report, I am not inclined to reconsider the bail applications of the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, both the bail applications are hereby rejected. 10. However, petitioners shall be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after two months, if the trial is not concluded by that time. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sunil/