Jharkhand High Court
Kanupriya Chawla vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 January, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
1 Cr.Appeal(DB) No.1175/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1175 of 2023
------
Kanupriya Chawla, aged about 40 years, Wife of Sumit Chawla
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sibi Bhengra .... .... Opp. Parties
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P.
------
04/Dated: 04.01.2024
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 15.06.2023 passed by learned District & Additional Judge-I, Khunti, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for anticipatory bail in connection with Khunti (A.H.T.U) P.S. Case No.03 of 2019 registered under Sections 370(4), 371, 374 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 16 and 18 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution version required to be enumerated reads hereunder as :-
3. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbayan of the informant, namely, Sibi Bhengra, wherein, it is alleged that in the year 2018, she had gone to Delhi with one Mohru to work and in Delhi, she met with one Raju through Mohru who got her employed in the house of appellant, where she worked for three months and when she 2 Cr.Appeal(DB) No.1175/2023 wanted to come back, appellant did not allow her to go back.
4. It is further alleged that appellant started demanding Rs.10,000/- which was paid to her for working and appellant also took her mobile, Aadhar card and other articles by giving threats but informant succeeded to flee away and, on the way, she met with another woman who took her home from where she was brought to Premaashrya, Ranchi and from there, she came to Khunti.
5. It is further alleged that in Premaashraya Ranchi, one Rajni Guria told her that she was also taken to Delhi by one Sanjay Kumar Singh who employed her in the house of her sister Madhuri on a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/-, who after working one year, came back with Sanjay Kumar Singh and she again had gone to Delhi with Belang Guriya and had worked in the house of Neha Bhalia and while she was going to Delhi, she was caught at Railway Station, Ranchi by child line.
6. On the basis of aforesaid fardbayan Khunti (A.H.T.U) P.S. Case No.03 of 2019 was registered under Sections 370(4),371, 374, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 16 and 18 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act.
7. The present appellant has filed an anticipatory bail application, in connection with aforesaid case which was rejected, hence, the instant appeal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside on the ground that there is absolutely no iota of any legal evidence to connect the 3 Cr.Appeal(DB) No.1175/2023 appellant with the alleged offence and the informant herself admitted in her statement that while she was fleeing away from the house of the appellant, she has been caught by Delhi Police and in course of query, she told them that she escaped from the home and at that time, the informant has not made any allegation of none payment of salary.
9. It has been contended that appellant never denied to pay salary to the Informant, it is informant by herself requested to the petitioner to keep her salary if she required and she will take it from the petitioner but in the meantime, she fled away without taking her salary.
10. Further, it has been submitted that the allegation of keeping Aadhar Card, mobile phone, cloths and other articles of the informant is completely wrong as informant has never shown her Aadhar card to the appellant and even at the time of police verification form, informant failed to give the mobile number which was alleged to be taken by the appellant and as such, the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR and has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive.
11. On the basis of aforesaid facts, it has been submitted that the instant appeal is fit to be allowed by interfering with the order impugned.
12. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant is named accused in the FIR and the investigation is still 4 Cr.Appeal(DB) No.1175/2023 going on, hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant may not be allowed.
13. It has been submitted that specific attributability has come against the appellant to the effect that when informant wanted to come back to her native place, the appellant started demanding Rs. 10,000/- and also took her mobile, Aadhar card and other articles by giving threats.
14. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in order to strengthen his argument, has taken aid of paragraphs-2, 3 and 48 of the case diary, wherein, at paragraph 48 of the case diary, the statement of the victim, as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been taken note, wherein, also the victim has fully supported the prosecution version.
15. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in view of the aforesaid premise, has submitted that in these pretexts, the prayer for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the learned court, which cannot be said to suffer from an error.
16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by learned court as recorded in the impugned order dated 15.06.2023.
17. It would be evident from perusal of the case record that on the basis of fardbayan of the informant, the case has been lodged for the offence under Sections 370(4), 371, 374 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 16 and 18 of Bonded Labour System Abolition Act against the appellant and others. 5 Cr.Appeal(DB) No.1175/2023
18. It further appears that the present appellant is the named accused in the FIR and case is still under investigation.
19. At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer herein the settled proposition of law that it is the duty of the Court to record its opinion that the accusation made against the accused concerned is prima facie true or otherwise and such opinion must be reached by the Court not only in reference to the accusation in the FIR but also in reference to the contents of the case diary and including the charge- sheet (report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.) and other material gathered by the investigating agency during investigation. Reference in this regard may be made to the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vrs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 294.
20. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid position of law and the factual aspect, as has been gathered against the appellant is proceeding to examine as to whether the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true or not by taking into consideration the material collected in course of investigation.
21. This Court had called for the case diary and directed the state to file counter affidavit if the state wishes, as would appear from the order dated 08.09.2023 and in pursuance thereto the counter affidavit has been filed and case diary has been kept on record.
22. It is evident from the paragraph-2 of the case diary that during the investigation, Informant victim in her re-statement and the witness namely, Baidyanath Kumar (Para-3) have substantiated the 6 Cr.Appeal(DB) No.1175/2023 prosecution story.
23. It is evident from paragraph-48 of the case diary that on 15.05.2019, statement of the Informant- victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein, she has stated that in February, 2019, she had gone to Delhi for working with her co-villager namely, Mohru and she was working in the house of the appellant and she used to get Rs.10,000/- per month.
24. She has further stated that she had sent salary of one month to her house, but her salary for two months was kept by the appellant and the appellant took away the mobile, Aadhaar Card and other articles of the victim with her. After 03 months, when the Victim wanted to return to her house, the appellant did not allow her and thereafter, the Victim succeeded to escape.
25. She has further alleged that Mohru had sold her to the appellant for Rs.1,00,000/-, which she came to know from the appellant subsequently through phone.
26. Thus, it appears that the victim informant had fully substantiated the prosecution story, as stated in the fardbayan with the statement as recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C..
27. Further, it appears from the paragraphs 163 and 166 of the case diary that the co-accused namely, Mohru Ram was arrested and he confessed his guilt in his confessional statement and had also disclosed that he, along with Raju had sold the Informant-Victim to the present appellant for Rs.1,00,000/-.
28. In view of the foregoing discussions, as well as on considering 7 Cr.Appeal(DB) No.1175/2023 the gravity of the offence, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated 15.06.2023.
29. In the result, we find no merit in the instant appeal, hence, the same is accordingly, dismissed.
30. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Rohit/-N.A.F.R.