( 2026:JHHC:24256-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 895 of 2026 --- Nazrul Ansari --- Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand. --- --- Respondent --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Rai --- For the Appellant : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. 02/13.08.2026 I.A. No.9584 of 2026 Heard Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. This application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning a delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. No.9584 of 2026 stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 895 of 2026 This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda in A.B.P. No.174 of 2026 arising out of AHTU P.S. Case No.01 of 2026 whereby and whereunder the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected. It has been alleged that the appellant and the other accused persons had taken away four girls to Delhi and had sold them at different places. Though submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that affidavits were given by the victims indicating that it was Dilip Malto who had taken them to Delhi, but it appears from the 180 BNSS statement of the victims that they have categorically stated that it was the 2 present appellant along with other accused persons who had taken them to Delhi. In fact, based on similar circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory bail of one of the co-accused namely Ibrahim Ansari @ Baida has been rejected by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.846 of 2026. Regard being had to the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 05.05.2026 and consequently we dismiss this appeal. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Shamim/ Uploaded on:14 /08/2026