Jharkhand High Court
Sushila Khalkho Aged About 40 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 August, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.611 of 2023
-----
Sushila Khalkho aged about 40 years, Wife of Sangam Khalkho, Resident of village Kone, P.O. & P.S. Karra, District Khunti. .... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. V.S.Sahay, A.P.P.
------
Order No. 05/Dated 31st August, 2023
1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 18.03.2023 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Bail Petition No.20 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Khunti (AHTU) P.S. Case No. 10 of 2021, registered for the offence under Sections 363, 370(4), 371 and 374 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case, since, there is no specific overt act against the appellant. Rather, the victim on her own had gone along with the appellant for the purpose of getting job and hence there is no ingredient of Sections 363 or 370(4) or 371 or 374 2 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act.
3. It has been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 22.11.2022 and, as such, these facts ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned court while considering the prayer for regular bail but having not done so, therefore, the order impugned may be interfered with.
4. While on the other hand, Mr. V.S.Sahay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted that there is specific allegation against the appellant.
5. Learned counsel, in order to strengthen his argument, has taken aid of paragraph, 7, 14 and 20 of the case diary wherein at paragraph 7 the statement of the mother of the victim has been recorded who has stated that the victim has forcefully been carried by this appellant. Paragraph-14 is the statement made by the victim before the Child Welfare Committee wherein the victim has corroborated the prosecution version. Further, at paragraph-20 of the case diary, the statement of the victim as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been taken note wherein also the victim has fully supported the prosecution version.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in view of the aforesaid premise, has submitted that in these pretexts the prayer for regular bail has been rejected by the learned court, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 3
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the material available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order.
8. We have also gone through the case diary, particularly, paragraphs 7, 14 and 20 thereof. It appears from paragraph 7 which is the statement made by the mother of the victim wherein she has stated that the victim was forcefully carried by this appellant.
9. Further, paragraph 14 refers the statement of the victim made before the Child Welfare Committee wherein also she has stated about allurement/inducement and she having been forcefully carried by this appellant and sold through one Shamshad at Delhi.
10. Paragraph 20 refers the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the appellant has fully supported the prosecution case.
11. This Court, on consideration of the said statements made therein, is of the view that ingredients of Sections 363 or 370(4) or 371 or 374 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act are well available. The learned court, in that premise, if has rejected the prayer for regular bail which, according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error.
12. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.03.2023 passed in 4 Bail Petition No.20 of 2023 in connection with Khunti (AHTU) P.S. Case No. 10 of 2021.
13. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Birendra/