Dismissed¶26

Ranjita Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Sept 2025Cr.A(DB)/468/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected — human trafficking network — placement agency — A.H.T.U. Gumla P.S. Case No.05 of 2023 — A.B.P. No.12 of 2025 — victims confined and sent to Rajasthan — Bhagtain Shanti Tana Bhagat — social counseling claim unsupported by documents — Cr. A (D.B.) No. 468 of 2025 — Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi — appeal dismissed — Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:26429-DB.

What did the court decide?

The statements of the victims clearly reveal that the appellant was an integral part of the network of human trafficking revealed from the acts of Bhagtain Shanti Tana Bhagat, on account of which victims were taken to the appellant's placement agency, from where some were recovered and some had already been sent to Rajasthan. ¶20

Ranjita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 of the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla rejecting the appellant's prayer for anticipatory bail in A.B.P. No.12 of 2025 arising out of A.H.T.U. Gumla P.S. Case No.05 of 2023. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in A.B.P. No.12 of 2025 arising out of A.H.T.U. Gumla P.S. No.5 of 2023, and consequently dismissed the appeal.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

¶20

Key takeaways

Notwithstanding the consistent denial by learned counsel for the appellant that she ran a placement agency, the evidence of the victims clearly reveals the existence of the placement agency, and no documents were brought on record to suggest that the appellant is involved in social counseling.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 468 of 2025 (decided 1st September, 2025) — Appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail (order dated 16.01.2025 in A.B.P. No.12 of 2025, arising out of A.H.T.U. Gumla P.S. Case No.05 of 2023, learned Sessions Judge, Gumla). Allegation: girls taken to Delhi by Bhagtain Shanti Tana Bhagat on the pretext of jobs; victims stated in the case diary that they were taken to the appellant's placement agency and kept confined, and other victim-witnesses also named the appellant. Held: the victims' statements clearly reveal the appellant to be an integral part of the human trafficking network; despite consistent denial that she ran a placement agency and the absence of any document showing social-counseling activity (a supplementary affidavit promised after the 12.08.2025 adjournment never materialised), the Division Bench declined to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26429-DB )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. A (D.B.) No. 468 of 2025

¶4

---------

¶5

Ranjita Kumari, aged about 39 years, W/o Jay Minz, R/o Village-Shakarpur, P.O. & P.S.-Netaji Subhash Place, Sitrict-North West Delhi PIN-110034

¶6

… … Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

… … Respondent

¶10

---------

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶12

---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahata, Advocate For the Res. State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. -----------

¶13

05/Dated: 1^st September, 2025

¶14

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahata, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶15

This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.01.2025 passed in A.B.P. No.12 of 2025 corresponding to A.H.T.U. Gumla P.S. Case No.05 of 2023 by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, whereby and whereunder the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶16

It has been alleged that on 18.01.2023, the daughter of the informant and his niece went missing and later on, on enquiry it came to knowledge that the daughter of the informant was taken by Bhagtain Shanti Tana Bhagat to Delhi in the name of providing a job. The informant had also come to know that several other persons have also been taken by Bhagtain Shanti Tana Bhagat to Delhi for providing a job.

¶17

Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant does not run a placement agency. It has been submitted that the appellant is a social worker and she does not have any concern with the allegations, which have been made.

¶18

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26429-DB )

¶19

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant and specifically averred to the case diary while submitting that the victims had stated that they were taken to the placement agency of the appellant and were kept confined in a room. Some of the other witnesses also, who have been the victims have also taken the name of appellant.

¶20

The statement of the victims, therefore, clearly reveals about the appellant being an integral part in the network of human trafficking, which is revealed from the acts of Bhagtain Shanti Tana Bhagat, on account of which, the victims were taken to the placement agency of the appellant from where some were recovered whereas some were already sent to Rajasthan.

¶21

It appears that on 12.08.2025, on the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant does not run a placement agency and is involved in social counseling based on which prayer was made to adjourn the matter so that supplementary affidavit may be filed bringing on record the documents indicating the activity of the appellant with respect to the social counseling, this case was adjourned.

¶22

Today, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahata, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant does not run a placement agency and there is no document on record to be suggestive of the fact that the appellant is involved in social counseling.

¶23

It would thus seem, though there has been consistent denial on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to running a placement agency but the evidence of the victims clearly reveals about the existence of the placement agency and apart from the fact that no documents have been brought on record to suggest that the appellant is

¶24

¶25

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26429-DB )

¶26

involved in social counseling, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in connection with A.B.P. No.12 of 2025 arising out of A.H.T.U Gumla P.S. No.5 of 2023 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal.

¶27

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶28

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶29

Pappu /-

¶30

Ranjita Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjita Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Biri Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand

Vimal Yadav Alias Vimal Jee Allias Ganesh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Imran Alias MD Imran Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Salim Mian And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Narendra Kumar Neotia Vs Ranchi Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner