2025:JHHC:17878 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4533 of 2025 Umesh Das @ Umesh Giri @ Umesh Pandey, aged about 30 years, S/o Murari Das, Sex-Male, R/o Village Chakchuko, P.O+P.S-Bishnugarh, Dist-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Anant Vikram, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, Addl. P.P. Order No.03/Dated- 04.07.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Bishnugarh P.S. Case No. 113 of 2022 (corresponding to G.R. No.1135 of 2023), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 385 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Hazaribagh. 3. As per F.I.R., informant is working as contractor and got a contract to construct pitch road from Bukna to Harihar Dham. It is alleged that he is receiving threatening calls on his phone from mobile numbers 9934137399 and 8709241437 by an unknown person disclosing his identity as head of NSPM Organization “Umesh Pandey”. It is further alleged that demand of Rs. 12 lacs as levy is being made from him with a threatening that if the demand is not fulfilled his family members will be killed. It is further alleged that on 15.06.2022 at about 7.30 P.M., some unknown persons came on 3-4 motorcycles and one miscreant disclosed his identity as Umesh Pandey and threatened to fulfill the demand of levy within two days otherwise he will also be killed like Sushil Mahto who was shot dead on 18.05.2022. 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.4484 of 2024 vide order 2025:JHHC:17878 Page | 2 dated 15.07.2024 was rejected on merits by this Court. It is further submitted that petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 25.04.2023. Charge has been framed on 30.07.2024 and out of five charge-sheeted witnesses, four 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 five charge-sheeted witnesses only four witnesses have been examined and from the report submitted by concerned Trial Court, it appears that the trial is likely to be concluded within a period of three months. 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 three 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