Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19910 (JHR)

MONISHA ROY v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.A(DB)/1137/2024 · 2025-06-10

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Rongon Mukhopadhyay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:14915-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1137 of 2024 1. Monisha Roy, aged about 29 years, daughter of Ram Roy, resident of Sarada Pally Madhyamgram (M), North 24 Parganas, P.O. & P.S. – Sarada Pally, District – North 24 Parganas (West Bengal). 2. Puja Singh @ Dada Bhai, aged about 33 years, daughter of Kajal Singh, resident of Laxmi Kunj, Shanti Nagar, P.O. & P.S. – Bariyatu, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand). ….. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellants : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 09/Dated: 10th June, 2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.06.2024 passed by learned A.J.C.-VII, Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 1615 of 2024, arising out of Bariatu P.S. Case No. 189 of 2024, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have falsely been implicated. It has further been submitted that the appellants are females, therefore, appropriate consideration be made with respect to the prayer made in this application. 2025:JHHC:14915-DB 2 4. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants. 5. It appears from the allegations that both the appellants trapped innocent girls and pushed them into flesh trade. It also appears that the business was running in several hotels, names of which find place in the F.I.R. itself. 6. Regard being had to the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 passed by learned A.J.C.-VII, Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 1615 of 2024, arising out of Batiatu P.S. Case No. 189 of 2024. 7. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sunil/