2025:JHHC:11302 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1046 of 2025 Bahura Oraon, aged about 32 years, S/o Late Manga Oraon, R/o Village Lakiya, P.O. & P.S. – Sisai, District – Gumla, Pin Code – 835324. ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 08/Dated: 11th April, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No.357 of 2023 arising out of Sisai P.S. Case No. 69 of 2023, registered under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Exclusive Special Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Gumla. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected in terms of order 25.06.2024 passed in B.A. No. 4067 of 2024 with liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in terms of the liberty, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail on 30.01.2025 after expiry of six months. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 09.07.2023 i.e. more than 1½ years. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the trial of the case and shall remain 2025:JHHC:11302 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 enlarged on bail 6. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has submitted that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court and there is no fresh ground to reconsider the same. 7. It appears that in terms of order dated 14.02.2025, the status report of the case was called for and the same has been received. From perusal of the same, it appears that out of 14 witnesses, 07 witnesses have been examined and the trial court has requested for further six months’ time to conclude the trial. 8. It further appears that a supplementary affidavit dated 02.04.2025 has been filed. From perusal of the same, it appears that till date, 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence and also the status report, I am not inclined to reconsider the bail application of the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 11. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not concluded by that time. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sunil/