Jharkhand High Court
Cr.A(DB)/1133/2026 of BIODYUT BAURI ALIAS VIDYUT BAWARI ALIAS VIDDUT BAURI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 14 September 2026
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1133 of 2026 --------- Bidyut Bauri @ Vidyut Bawari @ Viddut Bauri, aged about 24 years, son of Mantu Bauri, resident of Taljharia, P.O. Dhaban, P.S. Chatna, District Bakura, West Bengal ... … Appellant Versus The
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
2026:JHHC:27691-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1133 of 2026
---------
Bidyut Bauri @ Vidyut Bawari @ Viddut Bauri, aged about 24 years, son of Mantu Bauri, resident of Taljharia, P.O. Dhaban, P.S. Chatna, District Bakura, West Bengal
... … Appellant
Versus The State of Jharkhand
... … Respondent
--------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---------
For the Appellant :Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate
For the Res.-State :Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.
---------
04/14.09.2026 Heard Mr. Vipul Poddar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XIII cum Special Judge-III, CBI (other than AHD), Ranchi in Bail Petition No. 711/2026 in connection with A.H.T.U. P.S. Case No. 09 of 2026, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.
It has been alleged that the daughter of the informant was taken away by someone for the purposes of engaging her in some work. After two months, the daughter of the informant contacted the informant and disclosed that she was in Gopal Nagar in Gujarat, where she was brought by the present appellant. It has further been alleged that the daughter of the informant had requested him to bring her back from Gujarat, but when the informant, along with others, had gone to Gopal Nagar in Gujarat, the victim could not be traced out.
Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 183 BNSS, in which she has stated
2026:JHHC:27691-DB
that she has solemnized marriage with the appellant and has also expressed her desire to stay with the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that as per the victim, the younger brother and one Manju Kumari were also taken to Gujarat for the purposes of engaging them in a thread mill. Learned counsel adds that the appellant is in custody since 03.06.2026.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
In view of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, which indicates a different picture of the case and considering the period of custody undergone by the appellant, we, while setting aside the order dated 13.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XIII cum Special Judge-III, CBI (other than AHD), Ranchi in Bail Petition No. 711/2026, direct that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Ranchi in connection with A.H.T.U. P.S. Case No. 09 of 2026.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
14.09.2026 Umesh-Abhishek/-