1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 438 of 2025 --------- Md. Chunnu Alam @ Chunnu Qureshi @ Chunnu Alam ..… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. --------- 04/24.01.2025 This Bail Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 136 of 2021, corresponding to S.T. Case No. 169 of 2021, for the offence under Section 12(1)(2)(3) of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughters Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier this petitioner and one Md. Arman @ Kalia @ Arman were granted bail by this Court vide B.A. 13787 of 2021 vide order dated 11.02.2022 with the direction to remain present on each and every date till the conclusion of trial except for unforeseen circumstances. It is submitted that the petitioner being a poor person had gone to Mumbai for his livelihood and he could not appear on 03.08.2022 before the Court below, rather, he was represented through his lawyer, however his bail bonds had been cancelled for non-appearance on a single date and Non Bailable 2 Warrant of arrest was issued against him. It is submitted that the co-accused persons, namely Md. Arman Ansari and Md. Noushad Khan @ Noushad have been granted bail in B.A. No. 14573 of 2021 on 05.01.2022 and B.A. No. 680 of 2022 vide order dated 15.02.2022 respectively by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath) of this Court, which have been enclosed as Annexure-2 series. It is submitted that the petitioner has returned on 27.09.2024 and thereafter, he had voluntarily surrendered before the Court below on 03.10.2024 and he is in jail since last three months and hence, he may be enlarged on bail. It is submitted that the petitioner will remain present till the conclusion of trial and hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 3. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has misused the privilege of bail and hence, the prayer for bail may be rejected. 4. It appears from the record that though the petitioner was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2022 passed in B.A. No. 13787 of 2021 with the direction to remain present on each and every date till conclusion of the trial except for unforeseen circumstances, however, the petitioner was not present on 03.08.2022 before the learned Court below and his bail was cancelled on 03.08.2022 and 3 thereafter, processes were issued against him and vide order dated 13.06.2024, the petitioner was declared absconder and even the statement of the witnesses have been recorded under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. The Court below has also observed that if the trial is not concluded within two months, then he will be at liberty to renew prayer for bail. 5. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the trial is still pending against the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and considering the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for around Three (03) months from the date of his surrender on 03.10.2024, the petitioner is directed to be released, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma or his Successor Court in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 136 of 2021, corresponding to S.T.Case No. 169 of 2021 and further subject to the condition that one of the Bailors must be own relative of the petitioner and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date before the learned Court below till the conclusion of the trial. 7. Thus, this B.A. No. 438 of 2025 is allowed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m.