Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:34504-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1286 of 2025 Babita Kumari @ Babita Devi, C/o Shankar Patro, resident of village Postu Nagar, PO and PS Bagbera, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ... 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. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. --- 03/19.11.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella in ABP No. 285 of 2025 in connection with Adityapur PS Case No. 180 of 2025, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected. It has been alleged that the appellant and other accused persons had taken away the daughter of the informant somewhere on the allurement of work and money. It has further been alleged that till date there has been no trace of the daughter of the informant and it was suspected that the appellant and the other accused persons had sold her somewhere. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the victim has been recovered and her statement has also been recorded in which she has categorically stated about going to Madhya Pradesh on her own free will where her marriage was solemnized with one Panchu Lal Tawar. It has been submitted that so far as the role of the appellant is concerned, the same is only restricted to providing of work to the victim whereafter a few days she had left for Madhya Pradesh with some of the accused persons. Learned counsel therefore submits that the statement of the victim nowhere indicates about any role played by the appellant in selling her either at Madhya Pradesh or at Rajasthan. In such circumstances, therefore, the appellant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant and has referred to the statement of the victim recorded under section 183 BNSS. On perusal of the statement recorded under section 183 BNSS, it clearly transpires that the role of the appellant was restricted only to providing of work to the daughter of the informant and thereafter she had on her own free will had left for Madhya Pradesh where she had solemnized marriage with one Panchu Lal Tawar. Regard being had to the almost negligible role played by the appellant in the entire episode as alleged by the informant, we while setting aside the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella in ABP No. 285 of 2025 in connection with Adityapur PS Case No. 180 of 2025, direct the appellant to surrender before the learned trial court within four weeks from today and on such surrender, she shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with Adityapur PS Case No. 180 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This appeal is allowed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) 19.11.2025 S.B. -2-