PRAMOD KHERWAR ALIAS PRAMOD KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Cr.A(DB)/698/2026 · 2026-06-29
Arun Kumar Rai, Rongon Mukhopadhyay
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 18185 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 18185 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:18815-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 698 of 2026
Pramod Kherwar @ Pramod Kumar @ Pramod age about 27
years, Son of Kirani Kherwar, Resident of Bideshi Tola, Akorhi
Gola, P.O. and P.S. Akorhi Bazar, District-Rohtas, Bihar PIN
821301
….
…. Appellant
Versus State of Jharkhand ….
….
…. Respondent
--- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Hon’ble Mr. justice Arun Kumar Rai
For the Appellant: Mr. Md. Haider Ali, Advocate
For the Resp.-State: A.P.P. --- 03/ 29.06.2026 Heard Mr. Md. Haider Ali, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.05.2026, passed in B.P.No. 344/2026, arising out of Dhurwa (Hatia) P.S. Case No. 08/2026 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge CBI (AHD Scam) Ranchi whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3. It has been alleged that the appellant was involved in kidnapping of children.
4. Submission has been advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that he is in custody since 18.01.2026.
5. It has further been submitted that no overt act has been alleged against the appellant.
2026:JHHC:18815-DB
6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted that on the disclosure made by the appellant and one Md. Ashique, 31 children were recovered from Latehar.
7. It has further been submitted that the appellant has criminal antecedent and is involved in the racket of kidnapping children for the purposes of utilizing their services in theft and begging.
8. Regard being had to the fact that a number of children were recovered on the disclosure made by the appellant and the co-accused and no plausible explanation has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant with respect to the 31 children who were in custody in Latehar, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.05.2026 and consequently we dismiss this appeal.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
29th June, 2026
P.K.S./ Suman
Uploaded