2026:JHHC:11833 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11514 of 2025 Sarita Devi, wife of Santosh Thakur … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate --- 08/22nd April 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 116/2025 for the offence registered under Sections 137(2), 3(5) of BNS and later on Section 81 of J.J. Act was also added, now said to have been pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Hazaribag. 2. On 23.03.2026, the following order was drawn: - “1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the child, who was born to the petitioner, has been taken away by alleging that the petitioner had got the child upon payment of Rs. 90,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment to file an affidavit to show the documents in connection with the birth of child of the petitioner along with birth certificate of the child. 3. The supplementary affidavit be filed by 07.04.2026. 4. The counter-affidavit, if any, be filed by 20.04.2026. 5. Post this case on 22nd April 2026.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the supplementary affidavit filed on 02.04.2026 and has submitted that the petitioner had no male child and consequently, on 18.04.2025, one Umesh Thakur asked the petitioner if she could adopt a child and for that purpose, an amount of Rs. 2026:JHHC:11833 2 1,10,000/- would have to be paid to the biological parents of the child in connection with proposed adoption. Ultimately, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- in cash and further Rs. 5,000/- was transferred through PhonePe. On 18.04.2025, the child was taken by the petitioner from the residence of Umesh Thakur in presence of his family members and thereafter the child was brought to the residence of the petitioner and ultimately the child was taken away by the police from the custody of the petitioner on the allegation that the child belonged to one Chando Pasi. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent villager and has no knowledge of process of adoption, but what had transpired has been placed on record in the supplementary affidavit. He submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 28.07.2025. 5. The learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is a direct allegation that the petitioner had got the child upon payment of Rs. 90,000/- and the child was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He submits that in view of supplementary affidavit, there is all the more reason not to release the petitioner on bail. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances including the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 22.04.2026 Uploaded On: Mukul/-