2025:JHHC:13995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 665 of 2025 -------- Kariman Ganjhu, S/o Ram Kishun Ganjhu, R/o village-Lukuiya, P.O. & P.S.-Chandwa, District-Latehar (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahil, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. -------- Order No. 11/ Dated: 09th May, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Spl. POCSO Case No. 22 of 2022 corresponding to Chandwa P.S. Case No. 46 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1) & 376DA of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Latehar. 3. As per F.I.R., the allegation is that on 11.05.2022 at about 3:00 A.M., petitioner along with other associates has committed gang rape with the informant/victim. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that this is the second regular bail application of the petitioner and earlier his bail application being B.A. No.5359 of 2024 was rejected vide order dated 30.08.2024 with a liberty to the petitioner that if the trial is not concluded within three months, he may renew his bail application. 5. It is further submitted that just due to village politics and the pressure put by the family members, informant/victim lodged the instant case against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the case was instituted after delay of some days and 2025:JHHC:13995 2 B.A. No. 665 of 2025 petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 12.05.2022. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate 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 extended the privilege of bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is no fresh ground for entertaining the second bail application which is fit to be dismissed. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation coupled with the materials available against the petitioner and also in view of the fact that from the progress report submitted by concerned Trial Court, it appears that the trial is likely to be concluded within a period of two months. In this view of the matter, in the interest of smooth trial of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner which stands rejected. 8. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within two months from the date of receiving of this order and petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his bail application if trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Arpit