Dismissed¶19

Chambra Pahadiya v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Feb 2026Cr.A(DB)/182/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refusal upheld; appeal dismissed. Human trafficking suspicion — appellant held with eight minor children aboard a train; Rail P.S. Sahibganj Case No.34 of 2025; Railway G.R. No.67 of 2025; S.T. Case No.359 of 2025; Bail Petition No.383 of 2025 rejected 17.12.2025 by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj; custody since 08.10.2025; no ticket recovery; no criminal antecedent; witnesses supported appellant's involvement; Jharkhand High Court D.B., decision 20.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Having regard to the nature of the allegations against the appellant and the fact that several witnesses supported his involvement, the Court was not inclined to admit the appellant on bail. ¶19

Chambra Pahadiya Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

(2026:JHHC:5186-DB )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. A (D.B.) No. 182 of 2026

¶4

---------

¶5

Chambra Pahadiya, aged about 23 years, S/o-Dule Pahadiya, R/o-VillagePangro, Ward No.6, P.O.-Litti Pada, P.S.-Simlong, District-Pakur

¶6

… … Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

¶9

---------

¶10

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

¶11

---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P.

¶12

-----------

¶13

02/Dated: 20^th February, 2026

¶14

Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl. P.P.

¶15

This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in Bail Petition No.383 of 2025 in connection with S.T. Case No.359 of 2025 arising out of Rail P.S. Sahibganj Case No.34 of 2025 corresponding to Railway G.R. No.67 of 2025, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶16

It has been alleged that the appellant was apprehended along with eight minor children from a train by the police and the appellant was suspected to be involved in human trafficking.

¶17

Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in custody since 08.10.2025 and there has been no recovery even of any tickets of the children and the appellant has been implicated in this case primarily on account of suspicion. Learned counsel further adds that the appellant does not have any criminal antecedent.

¶18

(2026:JHHC:5186-DB)

¶19

Regard being had to the nature of allegation levelled against the appellant and the fact that several of the witnesses have supported the involvement of the appellant, we are not inclined to admit the appellant on bail. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in Bail Petition No.383 of 2025 in connection with S.T. Case No.359 of 2025 arising out of Rail P.S. Sahibganj Case No.34 of 2025 corresponding to Railway G.R. No.67 of 2025 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal at this stage.

¶20

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶21

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶22

20/02/2026

¶23

Pappu/-

¶24

Chambra Pahadiya v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chambra Pahadiya v. 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

Tulsi Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Victim Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravi Anand Vs State of Jharkhand

MD Parwej Alias Rinku Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saim Sekh Alias Saim Shekh Alias Shamim Alias Shamim Shekh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tulsi Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand