[2026:JHHC:2610-DB] Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 927 of 2025 --------- Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Turi @ Arun Turi aged about 44 years s/o Rupdhar kumar @ Upendra Kumar @ Sonu Manjhi r/o Village- Awaga, P.O. & P.S.-Bolba District-Simdega (Jharkhand). … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, APP ----------- 04/Dated: 02nd February, 2026 1. The appeal is under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act directed against the 11.07.2025 passed in Misc. Cri. Application No. 451 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega arising out of S.T. Case No. 66 of 2019(A), whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the present appellant has been rejected. 2. The appeal was heard on 05.12.2025 and the status of the trial was called for. 3. Status of the case been received and as per the report, out of 06 witnesses, 05 witnesses have been examined and now only the investigating officer is to be examined. 4. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has submitted, on instructions, that the investigating officer has also been examined in the meanwhile, as such, the present appeal may not be entertained, hence, may be rejected. 5. Upon this, learned counsel for the appellant has sought for leave of this Court to withdraw the present appeal, however, prayer has been made that the learned trial court may be directed to expedite the trial. 6. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact that the prosecution witnesses have already been examined as also taking into consideration the fact that the case of the present appellant had already been rejected on earlier occasion on merit vide order dated [2026:JHHC:2610-DB] Page | 2 20.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 855 of 2024 which has been appended as Annexure-1 to the memo of appeal, hence, just and proper would be to direct the learned trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it expeditiously rather than showing interference with the impugned order for the purpose of release of the appellant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) 02nd February, 2026 Saurabh/-