Patwari @ Patwari Mirdha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 March, 2024

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Patwari @ Patwari Mirdha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 March, 2024

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in B.P. No. 299 of 2023, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Barhait P.S. Case No. 09 of 2021 registered under Section 370/371 of IPC, has been rejected.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no attributability said to be committed so as to attract the offence of Section 370/371 of IPC.

3. It has further been contended that the victim has been recovered and subsequent thereto, her statement has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but in the said statement, there is no reference of commission of any crime said to implicate the appellant in the present case.

4. The ground has also been taken that the co-accused person against whom the specific allegation of trafficking the victim has been levelled, namely, Ledha @ Mithu Mohli @ Mithu Mohali has already been granted bail by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.07.2021 passed in B.A. No. 6612 of 2021.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted and the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 30.05.2023, therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid premise, the prayer has been made to quash the impugned order.

6. While on the other hand, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

7. It has been contended by referring to paragraphs-18 and 19 of the case diary that the direct complicity has been surfaced against the appellant.

8. It has further been submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.07.2021 cannot be made applicable since in the said case the bail was allowed merely on the basis of the custody since the petitioner of the said case, namely, Ledha @ Mithu Mohli @ Mithu Mohali, was languishing in judicial custody since 27.01.2021, hence, the aforesaid order cannot be said to be applicable herein.

9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the case diary and the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State of Jharkhand in opposition to the instant appeal.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant since has taken the ground that there is no overt act said to be committed by the appellant which would be evident from the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim, therefore, this Court has scrutinized the said statement which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant. It has been found by this Court that there is no attributability said to be committed by the appellant rather the allegation has been levelled against the co-accused, namely, Ledha @ Mithu Mohli @ Mithu Mohali and other accused persons.

11. It is further relevant to go through the statement made at paragraph-18 and 19 of the case diary which the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken aid but even by going through the same, we have not found any complicity of the appellant said to attract the offence under Sections 370/371 of IPC since there it has only come that the appellant used to provide job in Delhi.

12. So far as the ground of the learned State counsel that the co-accused person, namely, Ledha @ Mithu Mohli @ Mithu Mohali, has been directed to be released on bail merely on the ground that he was languishing in judicial custody since 27.01.2021, hence, the said order may not be applied to the present case. This Court, on consideration of 3 the said order, has found that the prayer for bail of the said accused person, namely, Ledha @ Mithu Mohli @ Mithu Mohali, was allowed even though the name of the said petitioner was disclosed in the statement so recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim, but, herein, after going through the statement so recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., there is no attributability of the appellant said to have committed the crime.

13. This Court has also taken into consideration that the charge sheet has already been submitted and the appellant in languishing in judicial custody since 30.05.2023, therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

14. Accordingly, the order dated 16.08.2023 passed in B.P. No. 299 of 2023 in connection with Barhait P.S. Case No. 09 of 2021, is hereby quashed and set aside.

15. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

16. 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 Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in connection with Barhait P.S. Case No. 09 of 2021 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 bail bond of the appellant shall stand cancelled automatically and; further subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be the father of the appellant and in case of his father being no more, the wife of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying the relation with the appellant.

17. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

[[[ (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Saurabh/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court