Allowed¶22

Anupa Nageria Allias Anupa Nageria v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 May 2026Cr.A(DB)/527/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

bail; criminal appeal (DB); High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Sessions Judge Latehar; B.P. No.103 of 2026; Mahuadanr P.S. Case No.30 of 2024; three persons to be engaged in domestic job; appellant not apprehended/intercepted at the spot; custody since 13.02.2026; bail bond Rs.10,000/- with two like sureties; S.D.J.M. Latehar; order dated 24.03.2026 set aside; appeal allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 24.03.2026 set aside; appellant directed to 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 S.D.J.M., Latehar. ¶22

Anupa Nageria Allias Anupa Nageria Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:13346-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. A (D.B.) No. 527 of 2026

¶4

---------

¶5

Anupa Nagesia @ Anupa Nagesiya, aged about 24 years, D/o-Debu Nagesiya, resident of village-Chetma, P.O.-Aksi, P.S.-Mahuadanr, Dist.Latehar … … Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

¶8

---------

¶9

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

¶10

---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mr. A.K. Tiwari, A.P.P. -----------

¶11

02/Dated: 05^th May, 2026

¶12

We have heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.

¶13

This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar in B.P. No.103 of 2026 in connection with Mahuadanr P.S. Case No.30 of 2024, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶14

It has been alleged that three persons, who were standing in order to catch a bus, were apprehended by the police and they had disclosed that it was the appellant, who was to take them for getting them engaged in a domestic job.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody since 13.02.2026. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant was not apprehended at the spot and in fact has been

¶16

¶17

2026:JHHC:13346-DB

¶18

implicated on the disclosure made by the minor children, who were intercepted by the police.

¶19

Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

¶20

Regard being had to the period of custody undergone by the appellant and the fact that the appellant was not intercepted at the spot, we, while setting aside the order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the learned Sessions

¶21

Judge, Latehar in B.P. No.103 of 2026 in connection with Mahuadanr P.S. Case No.30 of 2024, direct 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 S.D.J.M., Latehar.

¶22