Order : (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Chhipadohar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 116 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Latehar. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that on 31.10.2023 at about 7 P.M., Nitesh Xalkho (co-accused) took with the informant’s father for doing exorcism but his father did not return. On 01.11.2023, the informant went to the house of Binod Xalkho and enquired about his father but he failed to get any reply, thereafter, he searched around. On 02.11.2023, the informant’s cousin brother informed him about blood stain nearby, then the informant went there and found blood-soaked towel and other wearing apparel. In the meantime, the informant received information about a beheaded body, thereafter he arrived there and identified the dead body as his father. It is further alleged that Nitesh Xalkho (co-accused) along with other accused kidnapped the informant’s father and murdered him and thrown the dead body to conceal the evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that this is the second regular bail application of the petitioner and earlier his bail application being B.A. No.2912 of 2024 was rejected vide order dated 09.08.2024. 5. It has been submitted that petitioner is in the custody since 07.11.2023 and trial is in a slow motion. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate 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 extended the privilege of bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is no fresh ground for entertaining the second bail application which is fit to be dismissed. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of bail. 7. 6. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is no fresh ground for entertaining the second bail application which is fit to be dismissed. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of bail. 7. It appears that earlier regular bail of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 09.08.2024 on merits, the case pertains to serious offences under Section 364, 302, 201 & 34 of Indian Penal Code. Status report of trial has also been called from the concerned Trial Court, which has been received and indicates that out of 14 charge-sheeted witnesses, nine witnesses have been examined and only 5 witnesses have left to be examined and the tentative period for concluding the trial is mentioned as three months. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation coupled with the materials available against the petitioner and also in view of the fact revealed in status report submitted by concerned Trial Court, in the interest of smooth trial of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner which stands rejected. 9. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within three months from the date of receiving of this order and petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his bail application if trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period.