JUDGMENT : 1. This is third attempt by the petitioner seeking bail in S.T. No. 293 or 2018. 2. By an order dated 09.08.2017, B.A. No. 5382 of 2017 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on the following grounds: "An affidavit has been filed disclosing criminal antecedent of the petitioner. It is stated that besides the instant case, there are as many as four other criminal cases registered against the petitioner. Case-dairy of this case has been received. The learned APP referring to various paragraphs, in particular: paragraph nos. 6, 7, 8 and 27 of the case-dairy and paragraph 18 of the supplementary case-dairy submits that looted articles were sent to Gaziabad from where those articles were recovered. The accused persons have distributed the proceed of crime among themselves. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the criminal antecedent of the petitioner [refer "Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh Alias Lalla Babu and Another" reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446 ], I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage and accordingly, this application is dismissed. " 3. The petitioner again moved this Court in B.A. No. 1051 of 2019. The second bail application was dismissed vide order dated 17.05.2019. 4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all others have been released on bail - for example, Md. Sagir who moved this Court vide B.A. No. 1657 of 2017 was granted bail by an order dated 10.03.2017. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2017 and the trial may take long time and therefore he may be granted bail. 6. Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned Public Prosecutor appears for the State and states that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and now the trial has commenced - one prosecution witness has already been examined. 7. The proceeding in this bail application would disclose that the primary reason why the petitioner approached this Court seeking bail was that other co-accused who were granted bail did not appear before the Court concerned at the stage of framing of charge and while so, the trial was delayed. 8. Now since all the accused have appeared, charges have been framed and the trial has commenced, I am not inclined to entertain this bail application and, accordingly, B.A. No. 2727 of 2020 is dismissed. 9. 8. Now since all the accused have appeared, charges have been framed and the trial has commenced, I am not inclined to entertain this bail application and, accordingly, B.A. No. 2727 of 2020 is dismissed. 9. Vide order dated 18.12.2020, notice was issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. 10. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned Advocate General appears and states that inadvertently some important facts could not be brought to the notice of the Court and, therefore, order dated 18.12.2020 was passed. 11. On being satisfied after perusing the materials on record, notice dated 18.12.2020 issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur is discharged. 12. The contempt proceeding is closed. 13. The Registry shall not process the records any further compliance of the order dated 18.12.2020.