( 2026:JHHC:22280-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 846 of 2026 ------- Ibrahim Ansari @ Baida, aged about 40 years, son of Siraj Ansari, resident of village Ghatiyari, P.O. Mahuatand, P.S. Sundarpahari, District Godda, Jharkhand. …... …. Appellant (s) Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. …. Respondent -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI -------- For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State : Spl.P.P Order No. 02/ Dated 28.07.2026 I.A. No.9249 of 2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal is hereby, condoned. The aforesaid I.A. stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 846 of 2026 This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.05.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda, in connection with A.B.P. No. 132 of 2026, arising out of Ahtu P.S. Case No.01/2026, 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 four girls to Delhi and had sold them at different places. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that all the four victims have returned back and the informant and the victims have filed an application, indicating therein that they were induced and taken away to Delhi by co-accused Dilip Malto. It has further been submitted that the said application also categorically reveals about the non-involvement of the appellant in such human trafficking. Learned Spl.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant. -2- It appears from the impugned order dated 05.05.2026 that in the 180 BNSS statement of the victims, they have categorically named the appellant also as one of the persons who had taken them to Delhi. In view of such statement, the subsequent application preferred by the informant and the victims would have no relevance for the purposes of grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the above, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal, which accordingly, stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Dated 28/07/2026 BS/-