Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:34130) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9690 of 2025 Chandan Kumar, aged about 37 years, S/o Arbind Kumar, R/o House No. 133, Sarovar Nagar, near Surya Mandir, Devi Mandap Road, Ratu Road, P.O.- Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand, Permanent R/o Village- Chandwa, P.S. Chandwa, District- Latehar, Jharkhand. … Petitioner - Versus - The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party ------ CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. --- 03/14.11.2025 Heard the parties. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S Case No. 284/2019, corresponding to G.R. No. 1241/2020 for the offences registered under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-IV, Ranchi. Bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide B.A. No.8781 of 2024 by order dated 07.04.2025. Petitioner Chandan Kumar is the owner of Arivunambi Career and Management Solution Pvt. Ltd. He had engaged the Informant and two other persons namely, Nupur Rani and Danish Raza in his office as Data Entry Operator. As per the contract, he took Rs. 10.35 lakhs from the Informant, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 2.10 lakhs from Nupur Rani and Danish Raja as a security. As per the contract, Informant and two others worked for three months, but the petitioner did not pay a single penny to them. On being requested, he issued cheque which was never encashed. Thereafter, petitioner shut his office and fled away. Report regarding the stage of trial earlier called for, has been received. It appears that out of 8 charge sheeted witnesses only 3 witnesses have been examined. The learned trial court has reported that trial is likely to be concluded within three months from now. Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. -2- The learned trial court shall expedite the trial and preferably conclude the same within three months from the next date fixed for recording of evidence, failing which the petitioner, if so, advised may renew his prayer for bail. (Ambuj Nath, J.) November 14, 2025 Jay/-