p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 296 of 2025 Kalindra Kachachap @ Kalindra Kacchap, aged about 28 years, son of Sankar Kachchap, resident of village Bagadu Bandi Toli, P.O. Bagru, P.S. Bagru, District- Lodhardaga. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Adv. For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P. Order No.04/Dated- 14.02.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been an made accused in this case in connection with Bishunpur P.S. Case No. 30/2023= POCSO Case No. 03/2024 registered under Sections 376(2)(n)/376(D) of the I.P.C. and under Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. As per FIR, the informant aged about 17 years and the petitioner was known to each other since earlier. The petitioner being a friend of the elder brother of the informant and always used to come to house of the informant and the petitioner used to made phone call to her. Once, informant had gone to the house of her maternal grand-father (Nana) for celebrating Diwali. The petitioner went there and called the victim by making phone call, the informant went there and the petitioner was standing with his friend Imanual Ekka. They forcibly took her near Kaleshwarnath Vidya Mandir School by the truck and committed wrong with her. The victim tired to raise alarm, but the petitioner pressed her mouth. The informant was also taken to Kujam and there also the petitioner committed wrong with her in that truck and threatened to threw out from the truck if she would raise alarm. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that there was love affair between the parties and they are in touch with each other since earlier. Petitioner is in judicial custody since p. 2 20.11.2023. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate 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 enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 6. Earlier the regular bail application of the petitioner has already been rejected on merits and there are no fresh grounds. The status report was also called for from the concerned court which shows that out of 12 charge-sheeted witnesses only 09 witnesses have been examined and remaining 03 witnesses are yet to be examined. Under aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, which stands rejected. 7. The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial of this case within three months otherwise petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Amar/-