RANCHI, India, Oct. 7 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Sept. 8:

I. A. No. 10607 of 2025:

Heard Mr. Yuvraj Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State.

This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the delay of 22 days in filing this appeal.

Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 22 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.

I. A. No. 10607 of 2025 stands disposed of.

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1002 of 2025:

This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the learned District Additional Sessions Judge - I, Khunti in A. B. P. No. 106 of 2025 arising out of Khunti (AHTU) P. S. Case No. 2 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.

It has been alleged that several children who were trafficked were recovered by the police.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was neither involved in taking away the victims to Delhi nor he was running the placement agency. He further submits that the name of the appellant has transpired on the statement of one of the victims namely, Neha Sanga in which she has categorically stated that it was Anu Nag who had taken away her to Delhi and put to work by the placement agency. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has been named by the victim as a person who was acting as an agent of the placement agency.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

Regard being had to the fact that the name of the appellant has transpired on the statement of one of the victims and the specific role has been attributed to him of being an agent of S. K. Din Dayal Rise Enterprises Services which is a placement agency and which was involved in engaging the victim with one Shubhangi at Indrapuram at the district of Gaziabad, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant and the instant prayer is rejected.

This appeal is dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.