IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9467 of 2024 Rajveer Singh @ Rajveer aged about 21 years, son of Kuldeep Singh, resident of Flat No.102, Arjun Niwas, Mango, P.O. & P.S. Mango, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. … …Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand … …Opp. Party(s) --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --- For the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) : Mr. J.S. Singh, Adv. For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. For the informant : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Adv. --- 10/19.02.2025: Heard the parties. 2. The applicant, who is in custody since 08.07.2022, has renewed the prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T. No.201 of 2022 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No.136 of 2022 (G.R. No.568 of 2022) registered for the offence under Sections 302 and 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella- Kharsawan. 3. Earlier the prayer for bail of the applicant(s) has been rejected twice and lastly vide order dated 21.08.2023 passed in B.A. No.6930 of 2023 by considering the fact that this applicant has hired miscreants, who has committed the crime. Apart from confession, there is C.D. report also, which corroborates confession. 4. Innocence has been claimed and participation in the trial has been assured. It has been submitted that in spite of observation made by this Court to conclude the trial within nine months vide order dated 21.08.2023 passed in B.A. No.6930 of 2023, the trial has not concluded. It has been further submitted that thereafter a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed three named and two service providers namely, JIO and Airtel have been sought to be introduced as a witness. The main witness has already been examined and cross-examined. Regarding two witnesses, who have not been named and they are the service providers, an objection has been raised but that has been rejected by the court below. One of the service providers has been discharged without cross-examination. So far as another witness is concerned, who is service provider, the case has been adjourned on the request of the counsel for the applicant. Referring to the above factual aspect, it has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that there is delay and that delay is attributable to the prosecution. Further, one of the co-conspirators i.e. daughter of the deceased, has already been granted bail. On the above facts, prayer for bail has been renewed. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that the prosecution evidence is complete and the matter is lingering just because of not cross-examining the witness produced by the prosecution, after obtaining order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the prosecution witness is almost complete. This applicant has been roped in as a conspirator. 7. Considering the peculiar facts of the case and the period of custody, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant (s) on bail. Accordingly, the applicant(s), above named, is/are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court below, referred to above, on the condition that the applicant(s) will submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhaar Card(s) and also submit his mobile number(s) before the learned court below which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court. 8. Further, condition is that one of the bailors will be the father of the applicant (s) and he is directed not to leave the district without permission of the trial court. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Ravi/- Uploaded -2- B.A. No.9467 of 2024