Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:24186-DB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 532 of 2025 --- Adlin Khalkho @ Adlin Lakra W/o Male Khalkho, resident of House No. 49, Pindarkom Mahli Toli, Pindarkom, PO & PS Namkom, Ranchi, 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. Prashant Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. --- 7/19.08.2025 Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.11.2024 passed in A. B. P. No. 3225 of 2024 in connection with Namkom (Kharsidag O.P.) P. S. Case No. 267 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected. It has been alleged that the appellant on the pretext of providing education to a girl had convinced the informant who had brought her niece from Chaibasa to Ranchi and after 6 months, the niece of the informant had left the place and thereafter she was kept at Premashray, Ranchi. It has also been alleged that the informant on such information had come to know from the victim that the appellant used to throw hot water upon her niece and also used to assault her. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is aged about 71 years. It has further been submitted that co-accused namely, Sushila Xess has been granted anticipatory bail by the trial court in A.B.P. No. 2926 of 2024. Learned counsel submits that in fact the victim had fled away from the house of -2- the appellant and she returned back after six months after being tutored by the person who had sheltered her and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and has referred to the statement of the victim who has categorically stated about the torture committed upon her by the appellant by keeping her under starvation and pouring hot water upon her and committing assault upon her. On consideration of the statement of the victim, the gist of which finds place in the counter affidavit filed by the State, it appears that specific allegation has been levelled against the present appellant. In fact, while granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused namely, Sushila Xess, the learned trial court has taken into consideration the statement of the victim to the effect that it was directed only against the present appellant and not the co-accused who has been granted anticipatory bail. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal, which stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) R. Shekhar Cp 3