Jharkhand High Court
Chota Raju @ Raju Machuwa vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 August, 2022
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ)1396 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1396 of 2004
(Against the Judgment of Conviction dated 08.06.2004 and order of
sentence dated 11.06.2004 passed by learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner, (FTC-VIII), Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.362 of 2003 / Trial
No.127 of 2003, in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.60 of 2003, G.R.
Case No. 561 of 2003, Ranchi, Jharkhand)
Chota Raju @ Raju Machuwa ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Akhouri Anjani Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Spl. P.P.
8/16.08.2022 This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of
conviction dated 08.06.2004 and order of sentence dated 11.06.2004 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, (FTC-VIII), Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.362 of 2003 / Trial No. 27 of 2003, whereby and where under, the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366/34 and Section 452/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years under section 366/ 34 of IPC. He is further sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) and in default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo R.I. for 6 months. The convicted accused appellant is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under section 452/ 34 IPC and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) and in default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo R.I. for 3 months and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, the period of detention undergone by the convicted accused during the investigation, inquiry or trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence awarded to him.
2. The prosecution story arose in the wake of written report of the informant Raghunandan Ram (PW 2) addressed to Officer In-
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ)1396 of 2004 Charge of Doranda police station, Ranchi. Briefly stated the prosecution story as unfolded in the said written report was that the Informant stated that Sanju Kumari aged 17 years and Soni Kumari aged about 15 years had gone to the house of her uncle Jageshwar Ram at Ravidas Mohalla, P.S. Doranda, district Ranchi for appearing in the matriculation examination of Jharkhand Board, which was to commence from 25.02.2003 from her house at Baburam Toli, Bundu P.S. - Bundu District Ranchi. It was further alleged that the daughter of the informant namely Soni Kumari aged about 15 years had also accompanied her cousin Sanju as an attendant and they were staying at the residence of their uncle Jageshwar Ram at Ravidas Mohalla, Doranda Ranchi. It was further alleged in the FIR that in the night of 22/ 23.02.2003 at about 2.00 a.m. in the night, both the girls were found missing from the house of their uncle. The informant stated that he started search of missing girls on 23-24 of February at Bundu and suspected that the accused Chota Raju @ Raju Machuwa along with one Madan Machua, the resident of Baburam Toli, Bundu were also missing from the same day might have either enticed the girls or kidnapped/abducted both the girls who were minors.
3. On the basis of the above written report (typed) a formal FIR was drawn and a case under Doranda P.S. Case No. 60 / 2003, u/s 363, 366A/ 34 of IPC was registered against the accused and another and S.I. Ashok Kumar took up the investigation of the case. The I.O. recorded the statement of informant and other witnesses, inspected the P.O. During investigation, the I.O. came to know that the accused-appellant was at Chakradharpur and he was accordingly arrested from Chakradharpur at the house of his relative Chamra Machua. The I.O. further got information during investigation that one of the victim girls Soni Kumari managed to escape from the clutches of the kidnappers and had come to Ranchi and he 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ)1396 of 2004 accordingly proceeded and recorded the statement of victim girl Soni Kumari. The I.O. submitted charge-sheet under sections 452, 366 and 366A/34 of IPC against accused and investigation was kept pending against another accused Madan Machua and recovery of another victim girl Sanju Kumari. On the basis of charge-sheet in the Court, the learned CJM, Ranchi took the cognizance of the offences and accordingly the case was committed to the court of sessions and the learned trial court framed the charge on 30 July 2003 for the offence punishable under section 366/34, 366A/34 and 452/34 of IPC and after conducting the full fledged trial, passed the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.
4. Heard Mr. Akhouri Anjani Kumar the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the sole appellant and Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Spl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant
5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel submitted that the learned trial court has committed error in appreciating the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution in view of the fact as well as law. It has been contended on behalf the appellant that neither the victim girl had been examined medically nor her statement was recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. nor the I.O. had visited to the place of occurrence where the victim girl was kept for 2-3 months nor the uncle of the victim was examined where the victims were staying and all these factors have not been taken into account by the learned court below while appreciating the evidences of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The learned defence counsel relied upon the following Rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are- Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2018) 6 SCC 664, Mohammed Yousuff @ Moula 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ)1396 of 2004 & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 1118 and the Rulings of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Pirmohammad Kukaji Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1959 SCC Online MP 70
6. The learned defence counsel further submitted that the learned trial court did not consider the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution in right perspective and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is bad in law and fit to be set-aside.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State
7. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contention raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and this appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
Appraisal & Findings
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, perused the records including the lower court records.
9. It is found from the allegations as set out in the FIR that the victim girls were kidnapped / abducted by the accused persons including this appellant as one of them, but the reason for kidnapping / abduction has not been disclosed in the FIR. The informant PW -2 Raghunandan Ram had only disclosed his suspicion that the accused appellant along with co-accused person were also traceless from their house and therefore they had been named in the alleged commission of the offence of kidnapping / abduction. Neither any intention nor any motive has been disclosed by the father / uncle of the victims in the FIR as per the mandate of the offence punishable under section 366 of the IPC.
10. In the backdrop, this Court proceeds to examine and evaluate the evidences examined on behalf of the prosecution and finds that 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ)1396 of 2004 in order to substantiate its case, altogether seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, i.e. PW 1 Parwati Devi, PW - 2 Raghunandan Ram, PW 3 Bhola Ram, PW - 4 Raghu Ram, PW - 5 Rakesh Kumar, PW-6 Soni Kumari and PW - 7 Ashok Kumar.
11. In addition to that, the prosecution has also proved the following documents, which are as follows:
Exhibit- 1 is the signature of the informant on the written report and Exhibit- 1/1 is the endorsement on the written report made by O/C Doranda P.S., Exhibit - 2 is the formal FIR. The defence has neither led oral nor documentary evidence.
12. It is found that out of the seven witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, PW-6 is the victim girl and PW - 1 and PW - 2 are the parents of the victim girl respectively. PW - 3 is the brother of the victim girl (PW- 6). PW - 4 is the landlord, in whose house the uncle of the victim girl was residing at the time of occurrence, from where the alleged victims were said to have been kidnapped / abducted and PW - 5 is one of the tenants of PW 4 and PW 7 is the I.O. of this case.
13. At the outset the testimony of PW 6 is taken into account, by which it is found that the victim girl PW - 6 had stated that she was taken away by the accused and the co-accused person from Ravidas Mohalla to Banaras. She had also stated that her cousin sister was also kidnapped and the accused and his accomplice were having revolver in their hand and victims were threatened to kill by the accused persons, if they refused to obey their orders and that is why she had also accompanied to them out of fear. Further it is found from her deposition that she did not disclose any ingredients comprising offence of section 366 of IPC such as any kind of inducement or she was compelled or knowing it to be likely that she would be compelled with an intention to marry with any persons 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ)1396 of 2004 against her will or neither this witness whispered in her testimonies about the fact that either she was forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it likely that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, rather she had stated in her deposition that she was taken to Banaras, where she had been working in brick kiln and the other victim Sanju Kumari, used to live with co-accused Madan and she used to live separately. She had further stated that she remained in Banaras for two or three months and thereafter she returned back to her house. She did not utter a single word in her entire depositions about use of any kind of force or coercion or threat by this accused, rather she had stated that she had been in the brick kiln along with several other women and whatever she used to get the amount, she had given to the accused Madan to keep. She further stated categorically in para 13 that she had gone to her elder sister (didi) & brother-in-law. The way, she expressed her living in Banaras and thereafter her departure from Banaras to her elder sister, clearly established the fact that not a slightest evidence, to constitute the offence under section 366 of IPC, either any kind of inducement or compulsion used by the accused to compel her to marry with any person against her will or she was forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, was found in the testimonies of the victim girl P.W.6 in order to constitute the offence under section 366 of IPC.
14. The evidence of other witnesses PW- 1 Parwati Devi (mother), PW - 2 Raghunandan Ram (father), PW- 3 Bhola Ram (brother) who are the mother, father, and brother of the victim girl respectively are the hearsay witnesses and they had stated only the fact that the girls were missing from the house situated at Doranda from the mid night of 22/23 February of 2003.
15. PW-5 Rakesh Kuamr is the tenant of the said house, from where the victims were alleged to have been kidnapped and supported the fact only that the girls were missing from the house.
7 Cr. Appeal (SJ)1396 of 2004
16. PW - 4 Raghu Ram is the landlord of the house and he stated that he returned from Ramgarh on 25.02.2003 and came to know that the girls were missing and he advised the uncle of the victim girls to lodge the information to the police.
17. PW-7 Ashok Kumar is the I.O. of the case and had proved the endorsement on the written report made by O/C Doranda P.S. as Exhibit- 1/1, and the formal FIR as Exhibit - 2. Further he had stated in para 6 that he had taken the statement of accused and he (accused) told him that there was love affair between him and Soni Kumari from his childhood.
18. Having evaluated the testimonies of the witnesses it is evident that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have consistently supported the case of the prosecution that the victim girls were taken away by accused appellant, but none of the witnesses including the victim herself (P.W.6) stated about the other ingredients to establish the offence under section 366 of IPC which reads as under:
"366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.--Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid."
19. The learned defence counsel has rightly relied upon the following Rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court contending that only the kidnapping / 8 Cr. Appeal (SJ)1396 of 2004 abduction of the victim is not sufficient to constitute the offence under section 366 of IPC, unless the intention of the accused appellant is also inferred against the appellant for any kind of inducement or victim was compelled with an intention to marry with any persons against her will or she was forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, as held in the case of Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2018) 6 SCC 664, Pirmohammad Kukaji Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1959 SCC Online MP 70 and Mohammed Yousuff @ Moula & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 1118.
20. It is found that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani Case (supra) has observed in para 15, 16 and 17 as under.
15. In the above backdrop, it is pertinent to mention here the ingredients of Section 366 IPC which are as under:-
"366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.--Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid."
16. In order to constitute the offence of 'abduction' a person must be carried off illegally by force or deception, that is, to compel a person by force or deceitful means to induce to go from one place to another. The intention of the accused is the basis and the gravamen of an offence under this Section. The volition, the intention and the conduct of the accused determine the offence; they can only bear upon the intent with which the accused kidnapped or abducted the woman, and the intent of the 9 Cr. Appeal (SJ)1396 of 2004 accused is the vital question for determination in each case. Once the necessary intent of the accused is established, the offence is complete, whether or not the accused succeeded in effecting his purpose, and whether or not the woman consented to the marriage or the illicit intercourse.
17. Apart from this, to constitute an offence under Section 366 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitful means, that such abduction took place with the intent that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her abduction. Mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of this penal section. So far as charge under Section 366 IPC is concerned, mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough, it must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366 IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC. Further it has been observed by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, in the case of Pirmohammad Kukaji Case (Supra) in paras 8, 9 & 16 & 17.
"8. In my judgment, the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Ss. 366 and 452, I. P. C. cannot be sustained. It is obvious from the language of Ss. 362 and 366, I. P. C. that if a husband by force compels his wife to come to him and to live with him as his wife, he does not commit any offence under Section 366, I. P. C. 'Abduction' as defined in Section 362, I. P. C. is merely an auxiliary act, not punishable by itself. It becomes a criminal act only when it is done with one or other of the intents specified in Ss. 364, 365 and 366, I. P. C. Section 366, I. P. C. requires that abducting must be with intent that the woman may be compelled' or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will or that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.
10 Cr. Appeal (SJ)1396 of 2004
9. There can be no such intent when a husband forcibly takes his wife to his house so that she may live with him. Under the second part of Section 366, I. P. C., criminal intimidation or abuse of authority or compulsion for inducing any woman to go from any place must also be with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with some person. Now, here there is no evidence whatsoever to show that on 17th February 1957 Mst. Fatma had ceased to be the wife of the appellant. Mst. Fatma might have been given, away in Natra marriage to Taju.
16. The appellant's conviction under Section 452, I. P. C. is also erroneous. The evidence of Mst. Suraj shows that the appellant and his companions went armed to her house for the purpose of forcibly taking away Mst. Fatma. This fact is not sufficient to support a conviction under Section 452 I. P. C. which requires that the house trespass should have been committed in order to cause hurt to or to assault or to wrongfully restrain any person after having made preparation for that purpose.
17. For a conviction under Section 452, I. P. C. it is necessary to prove that the dominant intent of the accused was to cause hurt to or to assault or to wrongfully restrain any person. Here, the accused no doubt went armed to the house of Kasam. But he went there primarily for the purpose of forcibly taking away Mst. Fatma and not in order to cause hurt to or to assault her, no dubt by going armed the accused intended to intimidate the inmates of the house and thus facilitate his object of taking away Mst. Fatma with him. But the fact that he had the intention to intimidate Mst. Fatma and her mother, or that he caused them hurt in forcibly carrying Mst. Fatma does not mean that he went to the house of Kasam for the purpose of causing hurt to or assaulting or wrongfully restraining any inmate of the house. In my opinion, on the evidence on record the appellant can be held guilty only under Section 448 I. P. C. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Yousuff @ Moula' case (supra) has observed in Para 7, 8 & 9 is as under.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length it is pertinent for us to have a look at Section 366 which reads as follows:
366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.--Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, 11 Cr. Appeal (SJ)1396 of 2004 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.
8. Chapter XVI of IPC contains offences against the human body. Section 366, which is the pertinent provision, is contained within this Chapter. Kidnapping/abduction simpliciter is defined under Section 359 and maximum punishment for the same extends up to seven years and fine as provided under Section 363. However, if the kidnapping is done with an intent of begging, to murder, for ransom, to induce women to marry, to have illicit intercourse stricter punishments are provided from Section 363A to Section369.
9. Section 366 clearly states that whoever kidnaps/abducts any woman with the intent that she may be compelled or knowing that she will be compelled, to either get her married or forced/seduced to have illicit intercourse they shall be punished with imprisonment of up to ten years and fine. The aforesaid Section requires the prosecution not only to lead evidence to prove kidnapping simpliciter, but also requires them to lead evidence to portray the abovementioned specific intention of the kidnapper. Therefore, in order to constitute an offence under Section 366, besides proving the factum of the abduction, the prosecution has to prove that the said abduction was for one of the purposes mentioned in the section. In this case at hand the prosecution was also required to prove that there was compulsion on the part of the accused persons to get the victim married.
21. In view of the categorical mandate of section 366 of IPC and in the light of aforesaid Rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court, particularly in order to constitute the offence under sections 366 / 452 of the IPC, it is found in the present case that the most important ingredients about the intention and motive of the accused appellant under section 366 of IPC is completely absent in absence of an iota of evidence to that effect against the appellant. Admittedly in the FIR lodged by the father of one of the victims, namely P.W.6 there was no specific information to the informant as to how the girls were taken away from their place of stay and only on baseless suspicion that, since the accused 12 Cr. Appeal (SJ)1396 of 2004 along with the co-accused was also missing from their house, therefore they have been named. Even in the testimonies of the victim PW 6, there was no whisper about any kind of act attributed to the appellant to attract the ingredients of any compulsion, enticement, allurement or seducing for having illicit intercourse or to compel the victim to marry with any person against her will or knowing it to be likely to have intercourse or likely to be compelled to marry with any person against her will, rather from the deposition of PW - 6, it is found that she had been living in Banaras and working in brick kiln voluntarily and willingly and after two or three months, she came back and went to the house of her elder sister and brother-in-law. Further it is found that the accused appellant was arrested from Chakradharpur as categorically stated by I.O. PW 7 in Para- 5. The learned trial court has committed error in appreciation of the deposition of PW 6, where it is found that there is no whisper about the intention of the accused about any kind of inducement or she was compelled or knowing it to be likely that she would be compelled with an intention to marry with any persons against her will or neither this witness whispered in her testimonies about the fact that either she was forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it likely that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Thus the learned trial court grossly erred by ignoring these facts and by observing that the evidence of victim girl remained un-assailed in her cross examination by the defence in a sweeping manner without any basis. It is well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the weakness of the accused cannot strengthen the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has to prove its case at its own strength with the cogent and reliable evidences. In the present case, there is no evidence against the accused appellant that the accused appellant along with his accomplice had intended to take away the victim P.W.6 with an 13 Cr. Appeal (SJ)1396 of 2004 intention that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or she may be compelled her to marry with any person against her will and in absence of any iota of such evidence from the mouth of the victim, the accused appellant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under section 366 of the IPC. Further the doctor in this case has not been examined and therefore the age of the victim could not be determined in a convincing manner. The learned trial court has rightly appreciated the fact that it is true that investigation was not done in a manner expected from investigating agency and the victim should have been examined by a medical practitioner and in such cases, it has always been insisted that the statement of the victim must be recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., which has not been done in the present case and the learned trial court even after depreciating the role of the I.O., came to a wrong finding in absence of any cogent evidence to that effect and therefore the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence punishable under section 366 of IPC cannot be sustained.
Further it is also found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 452 of the IPC as the offence is said to have taken away from the well when the victim had gone outside from the house in open air because of hot weather, and further the I.O. in this case has stated that the place, where the alleged occurrence has taken place was secured with an iron gate and he described the P.O. in para 3 of his evidence and stated that there was iron gate in the house at the door. Even the PW - 2, who was the father of the victim also deposed in his evidence vide para-9 that the house, where the victims were staying, was secured by boundary wall and since the tenants PW - 5 Rakesh Kumar was also staying there and he came to know about the incident on the next date and PW -3 Bhola Ram was the brother the victim and he was also staying in the same house in a separate room situated just by the side of the room of the 14 Cr. Appeal (SJ)1396 of 2004 victims, but he also could know about the incident at the time of occurrence and therefore in the light of the Rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, it is well founded that neither the ingredients of Sections 452 nor of 448 nor 366 of IPC is proved by the prosecution inasmuch as there was not even a slightest evidence of causing hurt assault or wrongful restraint by the appellant upon the victim rather from the versions of victim P.W.6 it is manifest that she was living in the brick kiln of Benaras without any coercion or pressure and as such the learned trial court had miserably failed to appreciate the evidences in the right perspective. In the backdrop, the learned trial court erred in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and therefore the same is fit to be set-aside.
22. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 08.06.2004 and order of sentence dated 11.06.2004 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC-VIIIth, Ranchi against the appellant in Sessions Trial No.362 of 2003 / Trial No.127 of 2003, in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.60 of 2003, G.R. Case No. 561 of 2003 for the offence punishable under section 366/34 and 452/34 of IPC, is set-aside.
23. As a consequence this appeal is allowed.
24. The appellant is acquitted from charges levelled against him. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds.
25. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith to the concerned court below with a copy of this judgement.
(Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated the 16.08.2022/NAFR