2025:JHHC:11297 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1384 of 2025 Sudhir Lohra, aged about 20 years, S/o – Largu Lohra, R/o – Village – Harindhara, P.O. – Harindhara, P.S. – Simdega, District – Simdega, Jharkhand. ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 06/Dated: 11th April, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No. 11 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 73 of 2024, registered for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Simdega. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected in terms of order 26.07.2024 passed in B.A. No. 4735 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 04.02.2025 after expiry of six months. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner had no motive to commit any offence. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 04.02.2024. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the trial of the case and shall remain physically present as and when required and 2025:JHHC:11297 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 07.03.2025, the status report of the case was called for and the same has been received. From perusal of the same, it appears that the trial court has requested for further three months’ time to conclude the trial. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 10. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after three months, if the trial is not concluded by that time. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sunil/