Appeal under Section 21(4) NIA Act against rejection of regular bail in a case under Sections 363, 370(5) IPC and JJ Act. Court held prima facie no ingredient of Section 370 IPC made out; quashed rejection order and granted bail with conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1075 of 2024
------
Nabirul Islam, aged about-27 years Son of Manirul Islam, Resident of Village-Nurpur, Kathaltalla, P.O. Nurpur, P.S. Suti-2 DistrictMurshidabad (W.B.) …. …. Appellant
Murshidabad (W.B.) …. …. 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. Gautam Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Savita Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, APP ------
04/Dated: 17.10.2024
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated 31.07.2024 passed in Bail Petition No.171/2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, in connection with BHW/GRPS P.P. Pakur Case No.25/2024, corresponding to Rly G.R. Case No.40 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 363 and 370(5) of the I.P.C. and Sections 75 & 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case for the offence said to have been committed under Sections 363 and 370(5) of the I.P.C as also under Sections 75 & 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
3. It has further been contended that there is no ingredient of
1
Section 370 of the IPC but even then, the learned trial Court has rejected the prayer for bail of the appellant.
4. Such submission has been made on the basis of the disclosure so made by the victims in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., which has been appended as Annexure-2 to the paper book.
5. It has also been submitted that the charge-sheet has already been submitted and the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 23.04.2024.
6. While on the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 7. It has been contended by referring to paragraph-49 of the case diary, wherein, the statements of the parents of the victims have been recorded, who have stated that all the victims have been tried to be taken away without their consent, as such, it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that no ingredient of Section 370 of the IPC has been made out.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned order.
9. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant, has gone through the case diary as also the statements of the victims recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which has been appended as Annexure-2 to the paper book, for the purpose of consideration, as to whether, prima-facie any ingredients of Section 370 of the IPC has been made out or not.
2
10. It is evident therefrom that all the victims have stated that without any force, they have been accompanied the appellant for the purpose of earning money. Although, the statements of the parents which have been referred by the learned APP by referring to paragraph-49 of the case diary, wherein, it has been stated that all the victims have been tried to be taken away without their consent.
11. This Court, in order to consider the aforesaid opposition made on behalf of the learned APP, has gone through the ingredient of Section 370 of the IPC and found therefrom that all types of exploitation cannot come under the purview of Section 370 of the IPC, rather, the exploitation, as has been referred under the explanation part, as contained under Section 370 of the IPC will only come so as to attract the ingredient of Section 370, as such, even accepting the statement of the father as recorded at paragraph-49 of the case diary, then, also this Court prima-facie is of the view that no ingredient of Section 370 of the IPC has been made out.
12. Further, the charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no criminal antecedent against the appellant. Moreover, the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 23.04.2024.
13. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 passed in Bail Petition No.171 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur 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
3
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj, in connection with BHW/GRPS P.P. Pakur Case No.25/2024, corresponding to Rly G.R. Case No.40 of 2024, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause; and shall not commit offence of the like nature. In failure, the learned court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial, be not hindered and further that one of the bailors should be close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant.
17. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Rohit/-
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether ingredients of Section 370 IPC were prima facie made out against the appellant so as to justify refusal of regular bail.
Whether the Sessions Judge's order rejecting bail should be interfered with given charge-sheet filed and period of custody.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Nabirul Islam
The State of Jharkhand
Sujit Narayan Prasad
Navneet Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court