2025:JHHC:12379 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1386 of 2025 --------- Rohit Kumar @ Tinku, aged about 29 years, son of Late Lakhan Thakur, resident of village-Gunjardih, P.O.-Gunjardih, P.S.-Nawadih, District- Bokaro(Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. ----------- 07/Dated: 25th April, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Nawadih P.S. Case No. 60 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.910 of 2023 registered under sections 304(B)/34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the regular bail of the petitioner has been rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 18.07.2024 passed in B.A. No.2709 of 2024 with liberty to renew the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner after six months, if the trial is not concluded within aforesaid period of time. 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that in terms of the liberty, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail after expiry of six months. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial and shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or gain over them. The 2025:JHHC:12379 2 petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 10.08.2023 without any rhymes and reasons. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 7. From perusal of the status report being Letter No.102 of 2025 dated 17.03.2025 as received from the court concerned, it shows that out of total 12 charge-sheeted witnesses, 9 witnesses have been examined as yet and 3 witnesses have yet to be examined in this case for which a tentative period of 6-12 months’ time has been sought for by the learned trial court to conclude the trial. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against petitioner showing his complicity in the alleged offence and also perusal of the status report dated 17.03.2025, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is rejected. 10. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the trial of this case within a period of three months, otherwise, petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after the expiry of aforesaid period. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Pappu/-