Anita Tigga Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.647 of 2024

-----

Anita Tigga, aged about 38 years, w/o Braj Mohan Singh @ Braj Kishor Singh, r/o C-3, CDDA Flats, Shivaji Enclave, Tagore Garden, New Delhi, PO, PS, Dist.-New Delhi … … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶9

------For the Appellant : Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ajay Shankar, Advocate

¶10

For the Respondent : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.

¶11

¶12

Order No.5 / Dated:4^th October, 2024

¶13

1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned AJC-I, Ranchi in B.P. No.412 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with A.H.T.U P.S. Case No.08 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 363/370(S) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 75/81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been rejected.

¶14

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated.

¶15

3. The submission has also been made that no case has been made out against the appellant because nothing incriminating has been recovered and seized from her conscious possession. It has further been submitted that the appellant has no concern with the present crime and due to suspicion, she has been apprehended in the present case.

¶16

2

¶17

4. The further submission has been made on behalf of the appellant that though the appellant has been apprehended under Sections 363/370(S) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 75/81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 but no ingredient either of the Sections 363/370(s) of the Indian Penal Code or Sections 75/81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been attracted in the present case against the present appellant as in the First Information Report there is no reference of any exploitation to which the victim has meted out.

¶18

5. It has also been submitted that though one criminal antecedent has been shown against the appellant but in the said case she has been acquitted.

¶19

6. It has further been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 13.10.2023. It has also been contended that a charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case.

¶20

7. Based on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order may be interfered with. 8. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by submitting that in the case-diary, there is sufficient and cogent material against the appellant in the alleged crime.

¶21

9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the impugned order rejecting the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, case diary, criminal antecedent report as well as the affidavit in objection filed on behalf of the State in terms of the order dated 26.09.2024.

¶22

3

¶23

10. The argument which has been advanced on behalf of the appellant that there is no ingredient of exploitation as has been referred under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court, in order to ascertain the aforesaid facts, has considered the imputation made in the First Information Report as well as has gone through the materials collected during the investigation wherefrom it is evident that there appears to be no ingredients available against the present appellant as has been referred in the explanation as referred under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

11. So far as the issue of criminal antecedent of the appellant is concerned, one criminal antecedent has been shown against the appellant in the objection affidavit, but in that case the appellant has been acquitted vide Judgment dated 02.08.2022 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.168 of 2015.

¶25

12. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

¶26

13. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned AJC-I, Ranchi in B.P. No.412 of 2024 in connection with A.H.T.U P.S. Case No.08 of 2023, is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶27

14. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶28

15. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees

¶29

Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M, Ranchi in connection with A.H.T.U P.S. Case No.08 of 2023, subject to the conditions that the appellant

¶30

4

¶31

shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent herself on the date fixed without any cogent cause and shall not commit offence of the like

¶32

nature. In failure, the learned trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered.

¶33

16. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶34

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶35

(Navneet Kumar, J.)