Jharkhand High Court
Suraj Kisku @ Surja @ Surja Kisku @ Surya ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 21 March, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2218 of 2023
Suraj Kisku @ Surja @ Surja Kisku @ Surya Kisku ..... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P
---------
Oral Order
04/ Dated: 21.03.2024:
The instant appeal filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the learned Vacation Judge, Godda in B.P. No. 572 of 2023, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Meharma P.S. Case No. 05 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. No. 1577 of 2023, registered under Sections 366 A/ 372 of the IPC, and subsequently, charge sheet submitted under Sections 363/370/371/374/34 of the IPC and under Section 14 (1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 as well as under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that if the entire prosecution is to be taken into consideration there is no ingredient either of Section 363 and 370 of the IPC. It is evident that the victim was carried by the appellant for the purpose of searching job, it has suggest that it was with the consent of the lawful guardian hence it cannot be said that any ingredient of Section 363 of the IPC is attracted. Further, there is no ingredient of Section 370 of the IPC as there is no allegation of either subjecting the victim to compel or allurement.
Since, appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 20th September 2023 and the chargesheet has already been submitted as also the appellant is having no criminal antecedent, he may be enlarged on bail. 2
3. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned APP appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail on the ground as has been taken by the first information report and paragraph 8, statement of the victim wherefrom it is evident that the victim was subjected to exploitation and allurement.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that based upon the aforesaid ground the learned Court has refused to enlarge the appellant on bail as such same cannot be interfered.
5. This Court heard learned counsel for the parties finding given in the impugned order, case diary, criminal antecedent report as per the status report for which has been called for by this Court and the cognizance has been taken and as yet the case is on the stage of framing of charges. So far as argument regarding implication of the petitioner as per the first information report is concerned, this Court in order to appreciate the rival submission advanced on behalf of the parties, thought it proper to go through the version of the victim as referred in the first information report and her statement recorded in para 8 of the case diary. It appears from that version of the victim that she was maid in house of Virendra for the purpose of performing daily routine work. But, she fell ill thereafter she expressed her wish to go her house and thereafter wife of the said Virendra has asked her to go alongwith the lady Shanti Devi who lives in the adjacent house.
It appears from the statement of the victim that she was never compelled or subject herself to exploitation in the hand of the appellant herein, rather, it has been found that when she expressed her wish to go her parental house then it was informed that she may go alongwith the lady who lives at the adjacent house.
This Court is therefore has prima facie not found the ingredient of 3 Section 363 and 370. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 20th September 2023, as having no criminal antecedent. Regard being had to be facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside.
7. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
8. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda, in connection with Meharma P.S. Case No. 05 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. No. 1577 of 2023, subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate in the trial and shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to take appropriate course in accordance with law and further subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailer is close relative of the appellant.
9. Any observation made by us in aforesaid paragraphs shall not be construed as commenced on the merit of the case.
10. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Pramanik/