Jharkhand High Court
Kuldeo Sah @ Mithun Sah vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 17 December, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 736 of 2023
Kuldeo Sah @ Mithun Sah --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. --- --- Respondents
With
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1208 of 2023
Kuldeo Sah @ Mithun Sah --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. --- --- Respondents
With
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1504 of 2023
Pappu Sah @ Pappu Kumar Sah --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondents
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellants : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. For the UIDAI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, DSGI Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C to DSGI For the Informant : Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate Order No.23/ Dated 17th December 2024 Reference may be made to the order dated 29.10.2024, which is quoted hereunder.
"Affidavits have been filed by the respondent-UIDAI.
2. Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned DSGI appearing for the UIDAI has submitted by referring to the provision of section 31 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial & Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 that there is no such provision available in the Statute to provide any details of the Aadhar Card of any individual.
3. It has been submitted that the proper course would have been to make an application before the authority of UIDAI giving therein the details and the reason for seeking the details of the suspected person for 2 whom the allegation of trafficking leading to institution of present F.I.R under the provision of section 370/34 of the I.P.C has been levelled.
4. In response, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned Spl.PP has submitted by referring to paragraph no.7 of the counter-affidavit dated 17.10.2024 that the S.I.T has made a requisition seeking the details from the UIDAI so as to have a clue to trace out the minor who has been subjected to trafficking and is not being traced out for last about more than 10 years, the two minors herein.
5. Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned DSGI, upon this, has submitted that the copy of the said affidavit has not been served upon him.
6. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned Spl.PP has transmitted the copy of the said affidavit through Electronic Mode. However, it has been submitted by the learned Spl.PP that the communication of the S.I.T has also been sent to the authority of UIDAI on 28.03.2024 through official e-mail of S.I.T.
7. This Court fails to understand that when requisition has been made before the authority of UIDAI then why the appropriate decision, either way, not be communicated to the S.I.T. The authority which has been constituted for the aforesaid purpose, i.e. UIDAI, is also having the element of the public functionary and, as such, when any application, that too, by the prosecution side, i.e. herein the S.I.T, if have been made, then it was the bounded duty of the concerned authority to take a decision by making reference of the rider available in the statute, but they cannot in any circumstances keep the matter pending by not taking any decision upon the same.
8. Let the learned Spl.PP be furnished the details of the official mail to which the said communication had been sent to the UIDAI.
9. Let the further affidavit be filed by UIDAI by taking a decision on the said application.
10. In the meanwhile, as has been submitted by the learned Spl.PP, the endeavour has been taken by the S.I.T, since, as per her instruction, the S.I.T has moved today to have a clue of the traceless two minors on the date when both the minors have been subjected to trafficking.
11. Let the further update be furnished on the next date of hearing by filing appropriate affidavit to be filed by the individual who is heading the S.I.T.
12. It has been submitted by Mr. Gautam Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellantsthat although he is representing the appellants, but it is rampant in the area where trafficking is in the large scale, as such, an effective measure is to be taken by the District Administration, particularly, the Police Administration to put a check upon the menaces of trafficking.
13. The learned Spl.PP, therefore, is directed to file an affidavit regarding what remedial measure has been taken to protect or put a check upon the trafficking of the minor/adults from that area.
14. As prayed for, list these matters on 4.12.2024."
22. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned DSGI, in pursuant thereto has submitted that in view of the judgment passed by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2019) 1 SCC 1, particularly at para nos. 403, 405, 407, 408, 772, 779, 780 and 781, whereby and where under, by way of an amendment in the statutory command as conferred under Section 33 (1) of the UAID Act, provision has been made to make an application before the Court. Therefore, submission has been made that it would be proper for the prosecuting agency to make an application in the light of the provision as contained under Section 33(1) of the Act for the purpose of passing appropriate direction so as to provide the details of the Aadhar Card of the missing child.
3. Upon this, learned Spl.P.P. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin has submitted that she will make an application for passing appropriate order for tracing out the missing male child, who is traceless since 2014. Learned State Counsel, has, therefore sought for time.
4. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prayer for bail of the appellants has already been dealt with vide order dated 19.02.2024 by dismissing the same. However, the trial is going on in which prosecution evidence has already been closed but there is no further progress in the trial in the garb of pendency of the instant appeals.
5. We want to make it clear that the present appeals, which have been filed for consideration on the issue of bail of the appellants, have already been decided by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2024 and the present appeals are pending only for the purpose of issue of tracing out the male child who is missing since 2014 and for which this Court has also called upon the State to file an affidavit on the basis of which S.I.T. has been constituted. The affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that although the trafficked child of the 3 present appeal has not been traced out but during the tracing out process, several other trafficked children have been recovered.
6. However, as prayed for by learned State counsel, let the matter be listed on 9th January, 2025.
7. Let the copy of the said application, which is to be filed with an affidavit, be filed well in advance so that learned DSGI may also be able to file response before the next date.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty 4