IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1285 of 2025 Gita Kachhap @ Nandiya Mundain @ Nandia, aged about 39 years, D/o Mangra Munda, resident of Village – Tagar Toli, Dumargadhi @

Dumargari, P.O. + P.S. – Karrah, District – Khunti.

….. 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. Virendra Kumar, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.

---------

Order No. 08/Dated: 10^th December, 2025

1. Heard Mr. Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Misc. Criminal Application No. 95 of 2025, arising out of Khunti (AHTU) P.S. Case No. 19/2015, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

3. It has been alleged that several persons were trafficked and taken to Delhi and were sold and none of the said victims have been traced out.

4. Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that so far as the appellant is concerned, she is attributed to have taken away Surajmuni Kachhap to Delhi, but subsequently, the said victim has been recovered and the mother of the victim, who has been examined in course of trial, has categorically stated that Surajmuni Kachhap had gone to Delhi with her friends, which led to her being declared hostile by the prosecution.

5. It has been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 01.03.2025 and there is no chance of the trial being concluded in near future.

6. Learned Spl.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

7. The first information report clearly reveals about the present appellant, who is alleged to have taken away Surajmuni Kachhap to Delhi for the purposes of human trafficking. However, it is evident that the said victim has been recovered. The report of the trial court has been received and the same reveals that out of 18 charge-sheeted witnesses, only five witnesses have been examined so far.

8. Considering the fact that the victim has been recovered and the period of custody undergone by the appellant and the fact that there is no chance of the trial being concluded in near future, we, while setting aside the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Misc. Criminal Application No. 95 of 2025, arising out of Khunti (AHTU) P.S. Case No. 19/2015, direct that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in connection with Khunti (AHTU) P.S. Case No. 19/2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 273 of 2015 (S.T. No. 158 (A) of 2018), subject to the condition that appellant shall remain physically present before the trial court on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial until prevented by sufficient cause.

9. This appeal is allowed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

December 10, 2025 Sunil/