2025:JHHC:36397 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.10379 of 2025 Ramesh Hembrom @ Rameshwar Murmu, aged about 36 years, Son of Barsan Murmu, Resident of Village – Tilaipara Santhali, P.O.- Dumarchir, P.S.- Amrapara, District – Pakur. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gautam, Adv. For the State : None Order No.03/Dated- 04.12.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner but none appears on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Amrapara P.S. Case No.01 of 2020 (S.T. No.154 of 2022) registered for offences punishable under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Pakur. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was all along on bail vide order dated 21.09.2022 passed by this Court in B.A. No.9118 of 2022 wherein a condition was imposed that petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not able to appear before the learned Trial Court on 08.04.2025 due to inadvertence misconception of date fixed in the case. Therefore, his counsel filed an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the learned Trial Court and bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled. It is further submitted that the petitioner applied for fresh bail vide Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.231 of 2025 before the concerned Trial Court which has also been rejected vide impugned order dated 10.09.2025 merely on the ground that the petitioner has violated the condition imposed as above in the earlier bail order passed by this Court in B.A. No.9118 of 2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner has never misused the bail and all along remain present on each and every date during trial of the case 2025:JHHC:36397 except the aforesaid date on which representation under Section 317 Cr.P.C. was also rejected and bail bond was cancelled. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case and abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed. Hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find substance in the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in connection with Amrapara P.S. Case No.01 of 2020 (S.T. No.154 of 2022) subject to the conditions:- (1) Petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. (2) Petitioner shall not indulge in any or other similar offence till the conclusion of the trial. (3) Petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the prosecution witnesses. In case of violation of the aforesaid conditions, the bail of the petitioner shall be cancelled and shall be taken into custody by the learned trial court itself. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated: 4th December, 2025 Sachin/