2025:JHHC:28717-DB Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 861 of 2025 ----- Bablu Murmu, aged about- 41 years Son of Munshi Murmu, Resident of Amarpur, Borio, P.O. & P.S. Borio, District- Sahibganj … … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … … Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Appellant :Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State :Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. ------ Order No.03/Dated 18th September, 2025 1. The appeal is preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Act, 2018, directed against the order dated 07.07.2025 passed in M.C.A. No. 483/2025 in S.T. Case No. 129/2024, in connection with Borio P.S. Case No. 03 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 220 of 2024, for the offence under Sections 370, 371, 417, and 420/34 of the I.P.C., passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj. 2. As per the prosecution's case, the following allegations have been levelled against the appellant. The accused persons, named in the F.I.R. allegedly lured the complainant's daughter, Bahamay Soren, to Delhi under the pretense of offering her employment. They promised to send Rs. 12,000/month and allow communication but failed to do so. The complainant claims the accused took her daughter to Delhi on 05.01.2021 and did not keep their promises regarding money or contact. The accused allegedly threatened the complainant and physically abused her when she confronted them about the 2025:JHHC:28717-DB Page 2 situation. The complainant learned that the accused run a business in Delhi, exploiting young girls for labor under false pretenses. 3. The prayer for consideration of bail has been taken into consideration by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 840 of 2024, but was rejected vide order dated 13. 12. 2024. 4. The present appeal has been filed to renew the prayer for bail after its rejection by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the ground of custody, as he has been languishing in judicial custody since 03.02.2024. 6. This Court heard the appeal on 19.08.2025 and called for the status report, which has been received. The report indicates that out of 9 witnesses, 3 have already been examined, and the case is likely to be concluded within six months. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the allegation is serious against the appellant, and since the trial is to be concluded as per the report furnished by the concerned court, hence, instead of considering the prayer of the appellant for bail, let a direction be given to conclude the trial within the period mentioned in the report furnished. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parities and gone through the earlier order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 840 of 2024, rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellant due to the gravity of the allegations casted upon him. 9. The nine witnesses have to be examined out which three witnesses have already been examined. 10. The learned court has given a time frame to conclude the trial within a period of six months. As such, this Court is of the view 2025:JHHC:28717-DB Page 3 that, at this juncture, it will not be proper to interfere with the impugned order. Rather, in view of the report furnished by the learned trial court, the trial should be concluded within the period of six months. 11. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 861 of 2025 is dismissed and as such disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 18.09.2025 Umesh/Abhishek