Panna Lal Mahto Ganjhu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 March, 2016

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Panna Lal Mahto Ganjhu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 March, 2016

Bench: H. C. Mishra

        IN     THE       HIGH    COURT          OF    JHARKHAND       AT     RANCHI
                           B. A. No. 9381 of 2015
        Panna Lal Mahto
        @ Ganjhu                                       .....  ... Petitioner
                                     Versus
        The State of Jharkhand                            ..... ...    Opposite Party
                                  --------
               CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
                                  ------
        For the Petitioner        :        Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate
        For the State             :        A.P.P.
                                  --------

 7/ 03.03.2016

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution.

The petitioner has been made accused for the offences under Sections 363, 365, 367, 370, 371, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, Sections 14, 16 of the Child Labour Act, Sections 25, 26 of the Inter State Migration Labour Act and Sections 14 and 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, in connection with AHTU Gumla P.S. Case No. 3 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 65 of 2015.

There is allegation against the other co-accused to have taken away the minor son of the informant and the said co-accused subsequently informed the complainant that his son has been employed with the help of the petitioner, who was running a placement agency at Delhi. Thereafter the son of the complainant was traceless. The complaint petition shows the allegation against this petitioner has only transpired from the statement of co-accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no investigation in the case diary to show the implication of the petitioner, except the statement of the co-accused. Learned counsel has accordingly, prayed for bail.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail submitting that the witnesses have named this petitioner, but it is admitted that all the witnesses have stated that when co-accused returned village, he informed that he had handed over the son of the complainant to the petitioner at Delhi.

In the facts of this case, as there is no direct allegation against the petitioner to have taken away the victim, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Panna Lal Mahto @ Ganjhu, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Gumla, in connection with AHTU Gumla P.S. Case No. 3 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 65 of 2015.

( H. C. Mishra, J.) R.Kr.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court