2025:JHHC:11072 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.1858 of 2025 ---- Jitendra Rajak, aged about 47 years, S/o Budhan Rajak @ Bodhi Rajak, r/o Village Choudharybandh, P.O.- Choudharybandh, P.S.-Bagodar, District – Giridih. …. …. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) : Mr. Tarun Kumar No.1, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Mahto, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Adv. ---- 05/Dated: 11th April, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, informant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The applicant who is in custody since 13.07.2022 has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No.102 of 2022 (S.T. No.256 of 2023), registered for the offence under Sections 364, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Giridih. 3. It appears that earlier the prayer of bail of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2023 passed in B.A. No.13619 of 2022. Again, the prayer of bail of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2023 passed in B.A. No.6703 of 2023. Further, the prayer for bail made in B.A. No.10083 of 2024 has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.01.2025. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that complete set of FIR along with its enclosure have been annexed with this bail application and there is no suppression on his/her part. 5. Innocence has been claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made. 6. Learned counsel for the State and the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that out of twelve charge-sheeted witnesses eleven have already been examined. 7. Considering the stage of the trial, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected once again. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Amar/- Uploaded