IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.995 of 2025 Pawan Singh @ Ramcharan Ahirwar, Aged about – 21 Years, Son of Chunuvada Ahirwar, Resident of Village – Raund, P.O. – Satna, P.S. – Singhpur, District – Satna, Madhya Pradesh. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Ranjan, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Addl. P.P. Order No.05/Dated- 07.03.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No. 191 of 2023, corresponding to POCSO Case No. 08 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363/366A of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih. 3. As per F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that on 28.09.2023, the petitioner has enticed the minor daughter of the informant with the help of two ladies and fled away with informant’s daughter for the purpose of solemnizing marriage with her. 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.4337 of 2024 was rejected vide order dated 27.06.2024 on merits by this Court with observation that the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months otherwise the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. It is further submitted that there was love affair with the minor daughter of the informant, wherein the minor victim girl has stated in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that she was not forcibly taken by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the case was instituted after delay of some days and petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 03.11.2023. Charge has been framed on 17.02.2024. Out of 8 charge-sheeted witnesses, six witnesses have been examined in this case. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 report submitted by concerned Trial Court, it appears that the trial is likely to be concluded within a period of three 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. 7. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within three months from the date of receiving of this order, thereafter, petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his bail application after the aforesaid period. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin