IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1532 of 2024 --------- Sandeep Huni Purty @ Turi Purty @ Sandeep Purty @ Sandeep Turi Purty, Aged about 34 years, Son of Late Manu Huni Purty @ Madru Purty, Resident of Village: Gomiburu, P.O. & P.S.: Arki, District :Khunti ..… Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. --------- Order No. 05/Dated 6th February, 2025 1. The instant appeal is filed against the Order dated 20.09.2024, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in M.C.A. No. 993 of 2024, by which regular bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Ahtu P.S. Case No.01/2023, corresponding to S.T. Case No. 286 of 2024, registered for the offences under Sections 370, 371, 376 (2) (n)/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 5 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956, pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa. 2. Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, learned counsel for the appellant has argued the matter at length. 3. The basis of argument is that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case, reason being that it is on the basis of the enmity of the local people, the First Information Report has been instituted against the appellant. 4. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The ground of opposition is based upon the statement so recorded in the Case Diary. She has also taken the ground that the trial is in progress and as such it would not be proper at this stage to allow the prayer for bail since there is chances of tampering with the evidence. 6. Upon this submission, learned counsel for the appellant has sought for leave of this Court not pressing this appeal, however, it is prayed that since the trial is in progress and as such, learned counsel for the State may be directed to produce the witnesses as and when summoned so that there may not be any hindrance in the conclusion of the trial. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that there will not be delay in production of the witnesses so that the trial, which has already commenced, be concluded without any unnecessary delay. 8. Considering the above, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed as not pressed. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m. -2-