( 2026:JHHC:10004 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1471 of 2026 Punam Devi @ Soni Kumar @ Khushi, aged about 30 years wife of Nanhu Yadav … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. --- 04/08.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.12.2025 in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 47 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 137(2),144,95,61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 5(2) of I.T.P. Act, under section 13 and 14 of POCSO Act, and under Section 75 and 79 of J.J. Act, pending in the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO Act, Gumla. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a lady has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner along with others were apprehended when they had come to take away the daughter of the informant. It is further alleged that she was sought to be taken away for the purposes of prostitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that driver of the vehicle has been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 07.04.2026 in B.A. No. 1139 of 2026. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and it was the mobile number of the petitioner which was used to contact the victim. 5. To this learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim as well as her mother were alleged to have been contacted. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner and that ( 2026:JHHC:10004 ) 2 she had contacted the victim to entice her for the purposes of prostitution and was apprehended on the spot , this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. So far as case of the driver of the vehicle is concerned, the same stands on a different footing. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that charge sheet has already been filed in this case. 8. The State is directed to promptly produce the witnesses before the court as and when trial commences. 9. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District and to the Director Prosecution to ensure compliance. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 08.04.2026 Uploaded on:.09.04.2026 Binit/