1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 22 of 2025 --------- Sakendra Ganjhu, aged about 38 years, son of Late Jitan Ganjhu, resident of Village Gidi Loharshi, P.O. and P.S.-Pipratand, District- Palamu. … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Satish Prasad, APP ----------- 07/Dated: 18th March, 2025 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1779 of 2024, by which the prayer for grant of regular bail of the appellant in connection with Barkagaon (Urimari) P.S. Case No. 59 of 2017 (S.T. No. 02 of 2024) registered under Sections 364, 120(B), 302, 201/34 of IPC; Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Sections 16, 20, 23 of UA(P) Act, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although the trial is going on and out of 18 witnesses only 01 witness has been examined as yet. 3. It has been contended that there is no specific allegation said to be there against the appellant. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while vehemently opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail, has submitted by taking aid of the different paragraphs of the case diary wherein input has come against the appellant. 5. It has been submitted that since the trial is going on and as such, it would not be proper to release the appellant on bail otherwise there 2 is chances of tampering with the evidences since the appellant is having 09 criminal antecedents. 6. Upon this, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not pressing the present appeal but the State may be directed to expedite the trial. 7. Upon this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that all sincere endeavours will be taken by the prosecution to produce the witnesses so that the trial be concluded at an early date. 8. Considering the submission made on behalf of the parties, the present appeal stands dismissed as not pressed with the direction to the State to produce the witnesses in terms of the summons issued so that the trial be expedited. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Saurabh/-