2025:JHHC:13199 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2764 of 2025 Saryu Singh aged about 23 years S/o Ram Nandan Singh R/o Village Awasane P.O. Chando P.S. Chainpur Distt-. Palamau. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P. Order No.03/Dated- 02nd May, 2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with POCSO Case No. 37 of 2024 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 57 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 376, 504, 506 of IPC and 4/8 of POCSO Act., which is pending in the Court of Learned Exclusive Spl. Judge POCSO, Palamau at Daltonganj. 3. As per FIR, allegation is that on 12.03.2024, the minor daughter of the informant was on her way to Bhandar, suddenly, the petitioner forcibly caught her, touched her on private parts and on her protest, the petitioner gagged her mouth with dupatta, dragged her in bushes, tore her clothes and raped her and threatened that if she discloses the same to anyone, she would be killed. The minor daughter of the petitioner returned to her home crying and told the occurrence to the informant. The informant along with some villagers went to confront the petitioner, but found no one at his house. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 11.07.2024 vide B.A. No. 5191 of 2024 and this is the second bail application preferred by the petitioner. It is further submitted that charge has been framed on 13.06.2024 and out of 15 witnesses only 06 witnesses have been examined and 09 witnesses are yet to be examined and the trial is going on in slow motion. The petitioner is languishing in jail since 16.03.2024. Petitioner undertakes to 2025:JHHC:13199 co-operate 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 enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that it is a case of serious offence for commission of rape with minor girl aged about 14 years. The trial is in progress and the learned trial court, as per the progress report received from the court concerned has sought six months’ time to conclude the trial. Therefore, in the ends of justice, considering the gravity of offence and severity of punishment, the prayer of the petitioner for bail is liable to be rejected. 6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the respective counsels for the parties and also in view of the fact that earlier the regular bail application of the petitioner has already been rejected on merits and this second bail application of the petitioner has been preferred only on the basis of delay in trial. It appears that the trial is going on smoothly and in regular manner and the learned trial court itself imposed to conclude the same within six months. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, which stands rejected. 7. The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial of this case within six months otherwise petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Amar/-