Jharkhand High Court
Sujit Saw @ Sujit Kumar Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 February, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1621 of 2023
---------
Sujit Saw @ Sujit Kumar Saw, aged 31 years, Son of Karu Saw, resident of Village and P.O. Chandauri, P.S. Tisri, District-Giridih ....... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ....... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P
----------
Oral Order
07/Dated: 07th February, 2024
The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in B.P. No. 539 of 2023, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Tisri P.S. Case No. 55 of 2023 registered under Sections 370, 371, 374 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel the appellant has submitted that it is a case where there is no ingredient of Section 370 or Section 371 or Section 374 of the I.P.C and Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
3. Such submission has been made on the ground that as per the prosecution version all the children were going with the consent of their guardians/father for the purpose of earning livelihood as has come in course of recording of the statement of their guardian/father. -2-
4. The submission has been made that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 18.07.2023 but these aspect of the matter has not been considered by the concerned court while considering the prayer for regular bail and hence this appeal.
5. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It has been contended that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant that there is no ingredient either of the Section 370, 371 or Section 374 of the Indian Penal Code and the Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
6. Contention has been made by referring to various paragraphs of the case diary that it has been found that all the children were tried to be carried out to the different profession and in course thereof they have been apprehended from the railway station and thereafter the case against the accused appellant has been instituted.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned court below while considering the prayer for regular bail, the case diary and the written objection filed in terms of the order dated 24.11.2023.
8. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument as to whether the ingredient of Sections 370, 371, 374 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, is made available or not, has gone through the paragraph of the case diary, particularly paragraph nos.34, 37, 38 and 39 wherein the statement of the guardian/father of the victims have been recorded who have stated therein -3- that in order to earn the livelihood they were allowed to go along with the appellant to earn some money.
9. This Court, in view of the aforesaid statement, is prima facie of the view that there cannot be said to be ingredient either of Sections 370, 371, 374 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
10. It further appears from the statement made at paragraph 10 to the counter affidavit that the appellant has got no criminal antecedent.
11. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that order dated 18.08.2023 passed in B.P. No. 539 of 2023 requires interference.
12. Accordingly, the order dated 18.08.2023 passed in B.P. No. 539 of 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside.
13. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
14. 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, Giridih in connection with Tisri P.S. Case No. 55 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 steps in accordance with law; subject to further condition that one of the bailers must be father/heir of landed property of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailer is father/heir of landed property of the appellant. -4-
15. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
16. Since there is allegation against the appellant is of human trafficking of the minor children therefore, it is made clear that in case the appellant will be found to be involved in any case of human trafficking, the investigating agency of the Deputy Commissioner/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district will be at liberty to make an application for cancellation of bail.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-