( 2025:JHHC:12981 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3470 of 2025 ------ Sarfaraj Shaikh, aged about 27 years, son of Nasruddin Saikh, resident of Village-Dorhi, P.O. & P.S.-Margomunda, Dist.- Deoghar, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 30.04.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 248 of 2024 arising out of Madhupur P.S. Case No.71 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 302/307/325/427/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner files the certified copy of the deposition of the three witnesses. Keep the same in the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed the murder of Rahim Sheikh and Mujahid Sheikh. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and so far, three witnesses have been examined and they have supported the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in view of the overwhelming evidence against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court be directed to expedite the trial. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months from the date of this order. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/