Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7026 (JHR)

PUNAM MARANDI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.A(DB)/479/2026 · 2026-04-20

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Civil Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:11514-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 479 of 2026 Punam Marandi, age 27 years old, wife of Sarban Kumar Sah, resident of Village – Jitpur, P.O. & P.S. – Borio, District – Sahibganj. ….. 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. Sabyasanchi, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 02/Dated: 20th April, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Sabyasanchi, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in M.C.A. No. 833 of 2025, arising out of Borio P.S. Case No. 03 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 3. It has been alleged that the daughter of the informant was lured and taken to Delhi for employment, but till date, she has not been traced out. It appears that the petitioner runs a placement agency in the name of Poonam Enterprises, which lures innocent girls from the village to Delhi and place them in various households for domestic purposes. 4. Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that charge has already been framed in this case and the appellant is in custody since 09.11.2024. 5. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. 2026:JHHC:11514-DB 2 6. Though it has been submitted that appellant is in custody since 09.11.2024, but considering the fact that the victim has till date not been traced out, apart from the fact that the charge has already been framed and the case has been fixed for prosecution evidence, we are not inclined to admit the appellant on bail and consequently, this appeal stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) April 20, 2026 Sunil/ Uploaded on 22.04.2026