Sushil Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No.917 of 2024

-----

Sushil Hansda, aged about 40 years, son of Dudu Hansa @ Lakhan Hansda @ Budhu Hansda resident of Pathra, P.O. & P.S. – Borio, District - Sahibganj … … Appellant Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand. … … Respondent -------

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶6

------For the Appellant : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.

¶7

------ C.A.V. on 25.09.2024 Pronounced on 03/10/2024

¶8

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 19.06.2024 passed in M.C.A. No.258 of 2024 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Sahibganj whereby and whereunder the prayer of the appellant for grant of regular bail in connection with Borio P.S. Case No.281 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No.677 of 2023 registered under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, has been rejected.

¶9

Factual Matrix of the case

¶10

2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of written report of informant Marangmai Hembram wherein she has alleged that she is a resident of village Patra, P.S Borio, District- Sahibganj and on 07.09.2022 her co-villager namely Sushil Hansda came to her house and allured her by paying Rs.8000/- and took her son Baghrai Murmu,

¶11

1

¶12

aged about 14 years to Delhi for providing job. But after the lapse of one year, the informant could neither contact him over telephone nor her son is being brought by the appellant Sushil Hansda. When informant asked the appellant, then he replied that he will bring him. When the appellant failed to bring the son of the informant back, the present case has been lodged.

¶13

Submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the Appellant

¶14

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is absolutely innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the First Information Report and the appellant has been named in the F.I.R. only on the basis of suspicion.

¶15

4. It has been contended that the appellant has been implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motive and personal grudge under village politics.

¶16

5. It has been submitted that there is nothing against the appellant in this case to connect him with the alleged incident.

¶17

6. It has been contended that the informant did not lodge any report before the police after the incident but lodged her complaint before the learned court after an inordinate delay of more than one year.

¶18

2

¶19

7. It has been submitted that the appellant even does not know the informant or her son and it is also submitted that there is no such evidence on record regarding the complicity of the appellant regarding taking away the informant's son and the allegation of taking away the informant's son to Delhi for labour work is totally baseless and false.

¶20

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the son of informant, namely, Baghrai Murmu, went along with his brother-in-law (Jija) namely Daru Besra and not with the present appellant and Daru Besra has already returned to his home earlier and he is the best person to have the knowledge of whereabouts of the missing son of the informant.

¶21

9. It has been submitted that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant and cognizance has been taken Section 370 of Indian Penal Code.

¶22

10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no case is made out under section 370 of Indian penal Code against the appellant and he is a farmer having no criminal incident.

¶23

11. It has been submitted that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 06.10.2023 and out of

¶24

3

¶25

six charge sheet witnesses only two witnesses have been examined till date.

¶26

12. Learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that instant application is fit to be allowed by interfering with the order impugned. Submission made on behalf of the State:

¶27

13. Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid prayer of the bail stating that allegation is of heinous offence and trial is at evidence stage in which two out of six charge-sheeted witnesses have already been examined.

¶28

14. It has further been submitted that the informant and the three witnesses have supported the occurrence which would be evident from the case diary, and hence, the impugned order may not be interfered with.

¶29

Analysis

¶30

15. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the material available on record as also the impugned order.

¶31

16. It is evident from the factual aspects that there is allegation against the appellant for the offence under section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore for ready reference same is quoted as under:

¶32

4

¶33

370. Trafficking of person .—(1) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, ( a ) recruits, ( b ) transports, ( c ) harbours, ( d ) transfers, or ( e ) receives, a person or persons, by—

¶34

First . —using threats, or

¶35

Secondly . —using force, or any other form of coercion, or Thirdly . —by abduction, or

¶36

Fourthly . —by practising fraud, or deception, or

¶37

Fifthly. —by abuse of power, or

¶38

Sixthly . —by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received,

¶39

commits the offence of trafficking.

¶40

Explanation 1. —The expression “exploitation” shall include any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs.

¶41

Explanation 2. —The consent of the victim is immaterial in determination of the offence of trafficking.

¶42

(2) Whoever commits the offence of trafficking shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶43

(3) Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one person, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶44

(4) Where the offence involves the trafficking of a minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶45

(5) Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than

¶46

5

¶47

fourteen years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶48

(6) If a person is convicted of the offence of trafficking of minor on more than one occasion, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶49

(7) When a public servant or a police officer is involved in the trafficking of any person then, such public servant or police officer shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶50

17. We have considered the imputation made in the First Information Report and are of the view that to maintain a case under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be ingredients of exploitation which shall include any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs, but none of such ingredient is available.

¶51

Conclusion

¶52

18. This Court, on consideration of the essential elements of the alleged Section and the factual aspect of the case that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 06.10.2023 as also the fact that appellant is having no criminal antecedent and chargesheet has already been submitted, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

¶53

6

¶54

19. Accordingly, the order dated 19.06.2024 passed in M.C.A. No.258 of 2024 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Sahibganj in connection with Borio P.S. Case No.281 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No.677 of 2023, is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶55

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

¶56

21. 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 Additional Sessions Judge-III, Sahibganj in connection with S.T. Case No. 39 of 2024 arising out of Borio P.S. Case No.281 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No.677 of 2023, 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. In failure, the learned trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered.

¶57

22. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶58

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

¶59

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶60

Birendra/

¶61

7

Sushil Hansda v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Hansda v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Lal Bajaj Construction Private Ltd.,through Its Managing Director, Namely, Gourav Kumar Bajaj Vs the Uinon of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs

Budhram Singh Alias Bodram Singh Alias Budhram Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand through Nia

Central Coal Field Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Vs Jhalo Devi

Dhaneshwar Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hridya Nand Tiwary Alias Hirdya Nand Tiwari Vs the Union of India through Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement Ranchi Zonal Office

Govind Dusadh Vs the State of Jharkhand