2026:JHHC:5592 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.602 of 2026 ------ Ram Kumar, aged about 29 years, son of late Jagdish Nonia, resident of P.S.T. 2 No. Ground, P.O. & P.S.-Tetulmari, District- Dhanbad …. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ------ 02/Dated: 25.02.2026 1. It is a case where the ATM machine of HDFC bank had been broken and theft of money of Rs. 29,56,000/- was made from the said ATM machine. 2. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Nishant Roy, has submitted that on earlier occasion, although, the prayer for regular bail of the present petitioner was rejected, vide order dated 08.09.2025 passed in B.A. No.2825 of 2025 but now the prayer is being renewed on the ground of custody, since, the petitioner is in custody since 20.12.2024. 3. While, on the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. appearing for the Opp. Party-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. 4. It has been submitted that the nature of allegation is very serious since the ATM machine had been broken, from which, a sum of Rs.29,56,000/- has also been recovered at the instance of the present petitioner. 5. It has been contended that the trial is at progress and out of seventeen witnesses, five witnesses have already been examined. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. This Court has gone through the imputation made against the 2026:JHHC:5592 2 petitioner, from which, it appears that the petitioner has been found to be involved being the member of a group, who had broken the ATM machine and stolen a sum of Rs.29,56,000/-. 8. The prayer for regular bail of the present petitioner was rejected by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 08.09.2025 passed in B.A. No.2825 of 2025 but since the trial is at the progress and out of seventeen witnesses, five witnesses have already been examined, as also, considering the nature of crime said to be committed by the present petitioner, therefore, this Court is of the view that the present application is not to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected. 10. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. for the State has submitted that all endeavour will be taken to expedite the trial. 11. Considering the aforesaid, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial so that the trial be concluded expeditiously. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 25.02.2026 Rohit/-