2025:JHHC:17891 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3554 of 2025 Vikash Behra @ Bikash Behra @ Bikas Behra, aged about 42 years, S/o Rajendra Prasad Behra, resident of Village- Sidma, P.O.- Kheriatangar, P.S.- Manjhari, Dist.- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, Addl. P.P. Order No.04/Dated- 04.07.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Manjhari P.S. Case No. 35 of 2022 (S.T. Case No.195 of 2023), registered for the offences punishable under Section 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code, thereafter, charge has been framed on 03.07.2023 under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B, 367, 368 and 371 of the I.P.C., pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. 3. As per FIR, allegation is that on 26.05.2022 at about 10:40 A.M., the informant received the information on his mobile phone that in village Sidma, three persons of his family were kidnapped. Thereafter, he along with police force reached at place of occurrence and found that present petitioner (Vikash Behra) who has a land dispute with the informant, has kidnaped the family members of the informant. 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 only on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that this is the third regular bail application of the petitioner and earlier his bail applications being B.A. No.1745 of 2024 vide order dated 01.07.2024 was rejected on merits by this Court and B.A. No.10881 of 2024 vide order dated 03.01.2025 was also rejected on merits by this Court with 2025:JHHC:17891 Page | 2 observation that the learned trial court directed to expedite the trial of the case and conclude the same preferably within a period of two months otherwise the petitioner was at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. It is further submitted that the trial has not concluded within the time framed by this Court and there is a land dispute and petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 07.06.2023. Charge has been framed on 03.07.2023. 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 third bail application while earlier his two bail applications were rejected and 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 twice on merits and from the report submitted by concerned Trial Court, it appears that the case is only pending for receipt of the F.S.L. Report. In this view of the matter, in the interest of smooth trial of the case, 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