BINOD PRASAD YADAV ALIAS BINOD KUMAR YADAV v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Cr.A(DB)/551/2025 · 2025-06-13
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Criminal Appealbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 12971 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 12971 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15340-DB ) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 551 of 2025
---------
Binod Prasad Yadav @ Binod Kumar Yadav, S/o Binod Kumar Yadav @ Rupnarayan Yadav, R/o Village- Baghmara, P.O. & P.S.- Jamua, District- Giridih.
... … Appellant
Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Respondent
--------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.
---------
02/13.06.2025 Heard Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Giridih in B.P. No. 162/2025, arising out of Jamua P.S. Case No. 38/2025, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.
It has been alleged that the appellant as well as some other named accused persons were trafficking the women of the rural areas who are working in Banvasi Vikas Ashram Sanstha Giridih to Rajasthan for the purposes of prostitution.
Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that one Bhuti Devi who was said to have been trafficked to Jaipur was recovered and she had disclosed the name of one Sushila Devi who is said to have sold her. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the name of the appellant does not figure in the statement of Bhuti Devi. It has further been submitted that the appellant is a Ward Member and is in custody since
26.02.2025.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15340-DB ) -2-
Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
Regard being had to the fact that the recovered victim has not taken the name of the appellant, we while setting aside the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Giridih in B.P. No. 162/2025, arising out of Jamua P.S. Case No. 38/2025, direct that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned J.M.F.C., Giridih in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 38/2025.
This appeal stands allowed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
A. Sanga/-