The High Court quashed the order rejecting bail under the National Investigation Agency Act, finding no evidence that ingredients of Section 370 IPC were made out against the appellant. Bail was granted subject to trial cooperation.
Impugned order dated 17.05.2024 quashed; appellant directed to release on bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
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
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.725 of 2024
-----
Basanti Kumari, aged about 29 years, w/o Rajendra Baraik, r/o villagePathalkuda, PO & PS-Kurdeg, District-Simdega … Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mrs. Bandana Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
Order No.5 / Dated:4th October, 2024
1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has sought for leave of this Court to accept the supplementary affidavit dated 4.10.2024 filed in pursuance of the order dated 25.09.2024 appending therein the evidence of the victim and prosecution witnesses. A copy of the same has already been served upon the learned APP.
2. It has been submitted that since the case is being running in the list today, therefore, the said supplementary affidavit could not be filed. 3. Considering the aforesaid submission, the supplementary affidavit dated 4.10.2024 is accepted and taken on record.
4. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in Bail Petition No.61 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with A.H.T.U P.S. Case No.01 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 363/370(5) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 75/81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been rejected.
2
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated.
6. 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. It has further been submitted that the main allegation is against one Sushila Xalxo and not against the present appellant.
7. The further submission has been made on behalf of the appellant that even the prosecution story is taken to be correct, then also no ingredient of Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the present appellant. It has further been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 09.04.2024. It has also been contended that a charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case. 8. Based on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order may be interfered with. 9. 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. It has been submitted that as per the First Information Report that ingredients of Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the present appellant. In support of his contention, the learned APP has referred to various paragraphs of the case diary based upon which the learned Sessions
3
Judge has rejected the prayer of the bail of the appellant, particularly, paragraph nos.40 and 41.
10. 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 counter affidavit dated 04.07.2024 filed on behalf of the State.
11. This needs to be referred herein that although the learned counsel for the appellant has filed the testimony of the victim and the prosecution witnesses through the supplementary affidavit dated 4.10.2024, but since the trial is pending and, as such, this Court is of the view that the same is not to be considered at this stage.
12. This Court, however, has gone through the submission made on behalf of the appellant regarding the ingredients said to be attracted so as to make out an offence committed under section 370 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. This Court in order to appreciate the said argument has considered the imputation made in the FIR as also the case diary upon which the learned APP has relied upon the paragraph nos.40 and 41. This Court, after going through the paragraph nos. 40 and 41 of the case diary, has found that there is no specific attributability said to be committed by the appellant.
14. Further, this Court after going through the ingredient of Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, particularly, the explanation and comparing with the imputation made in the FIR and the materials collected in course of the investigation is, prima facie, of the view that
4
the ingredient of Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code is not to be made out in the present case.
15. 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.
16. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 17.05.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in Bail Petition No.61 of 2024 in connection with A.H.T.U P.S. Case No.01 of 2024, is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
17. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
18. 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 C.J.M, Simdega in connection with A.H.T.U P.S. Case No.01 of 2024, subject to the conditions that the appellant 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 nature. In failure, the learned trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered.
19. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case on merit, since, the trial is pending.
20. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Sudhir
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting bail under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 should be interfered with.
Whether the ingredients of Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the appellant based on the FIR and case diary.
Whether the appellant's admission in a supplementary affidavit can be considered during the pendency of the trial.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Basanti Kumari
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
