Jharkhand High Court
Prabha Muni vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party on 4 February, 2019
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8958 of 2018
Prabha Muni ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P.
---------
07/Dated: 04/02/2019
Petitioner is accused in AHTU Simdega P.S. Case No. 05 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 202 of 2013 (S.T. No. 32 of 2018), registered for the offence under Sections 363, 370, 371, 372, 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5 of ITP Act, 1956, Section 23 / 26 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 14 of the Child Labour Prohibition Act, pending in the court learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega, lodged on the basis of one written report given by Amus Kandulna.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed bringing on record that after investigation, final form was submitted and case was committed to the court of Sessions in S.T. No. 32/2018 and under order dated 11.12.2018, learned Niraj Kumar Srivastav, Additional Sessions Judge,I, Simdega has framed charges under Sections 363/34 of I.P.C., Section 370 of I.P.C., Section 371 of I.P.C., Section 372/34, Section 379 of I.P.C., Sections 23/26 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Section 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 against Rohit Kumar Muni and Prabha Muni. In the affidavit in para-3, in terms of the order dated 09.01.2019, it is stated that petitioner has no criminal antecedent, save and expect the instant case.
Today, when the case is called out, learned counsel for the petitioner produced the evidence of the victim and submitted that prosecution has examined two witnesses P.W.-1 namely, Made Guriya, who turned hostile and P.W.-2 namely, Bahamani Dang @ Guriya, (Victim herself), who has failed to recognize Prabha Muni and Rohit Muni and she was declared hostile and in cross-examination by learned APP on behalf of the State, in para-2, it has been stated that in her statement recorded under Section 299 of Cr.P.C., she had wrongly said that this petitioner and her husband had enticed her and had taken her to Delhi.
-2-In para-5 she has stated that out of the two versions of the occurrence earlier recorded and the version recorded on 22.01.2019, the later version is correct.
From perusal of order sheet recorded in S.T. No. 32 of 2018 dated 10.04.2018, it appears that Bahamani @ Dang @ Guriya was examined as P.W.-2 under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. From order sheet dated 10.04.2018, it appears that the accused persons were absconding and no prosecution witness was in attendance. Later on, it appears that Bahmuni Gudiya victim appeared and she was examined as P.W.-2, where she identified her signature on the fardbeyan and was marked as Exhibit-1. The case was posted for recording evidence of witness on 11.04.2018, but no prosecution witness was in attendance and on 12.04.2018 also no prosecution witness was in attendance.
Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a lady and she is in custody since 29.09.2018, the petitioner is directed to be released on provisional bail till 28.03.2019 on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega, in connection with AHTU Simdega P.S. Case No. 05 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 202 of 2013 (S.T. No. 32 of 2018) subject to the condition that one of the bailers shall be a close relative of the petitioner and she will remain physically present before the trial court on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
Further, Office is directed to call for a report from the court concerned in view of the aforesaid development of the facts that once the evidence of the victim namely, Bahmuni Gudiya was recorded on 22.01.2019 under Section 299 of Cr.P.C., under which provisions of law, the prosecutor has not only recorded her examination-in-chief again and thereafter she was cross-examined. As per settled law, once the statement of witness is recorded under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. in absence of accused, later on, the accused has the only right to cross-examine the witness. Whether the trial court has considered this aspect or not. If not, the trial court is directed to explain the reasons thereof.
-3-Report must be submitted to this Court latest by 07.03.2019.
List this case on 07.03.2019. On that date, petitioner shall also remain present in this Court.
Let a copy of order be sent to the trial court at once, cost to be borne by the petitioner.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/