Sanjhali Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 994 of 2024

¶2

------

¶3

Sanjhali Marandi, aged about- 35 year Son of Late Sanjay Mohali, Resident of Banbasa Mandro, P.O. & P.S. Mirjachoki, DistrictSahibganj.

¶4

Umesh Prasad, aged about-28 years Son of Babulal Mahato, Resident of Ward No. 2 Panchrukhiya, P.O. & P.S. Malahi, District- Purvi Champaran (Bihar).

¶5

…. Appellants

¶6

Versus The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent

¶7

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

¶8

------ For the Appellants : Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P.

¶9

------

¶10

06/Dated: 22^nd October, 2024

¶11

1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated 24.06.2024 passed in Bail Petition No. 142 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, camp at Rajmahal, in connection with Tinpahar P.S. Case No. 22 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 370(5)/34 of IPC whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellants has been rejected.

¶12

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that it is a case where no ingredient is being made out to attract the offence under Section 370(5)/34 of IPC, since there is no evidence of exploitation as per the explanation of Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

3. It has further been submitted that the charge sheet has already been

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

submitted in the present case and both of the appellants are languishing in custody since 10.04.2024 and the appellants are having no criminal antecedents.

¶16

4. It has further been submitted that it cannot be said to be trafficking, since in course thereof the minors have been get hold of by the police on the basis of the complaint made by the their parents.

¶17

5. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, while vehemently opposing the prayer for bail as contended in counter affidavit by making reference to the paragraphs of the case diary which support the case of prosecution and further stated that the petitioners have admitted their guilt and after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the learned Court has rejected the prayer for regular bail.

¶18

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by learned Court in impugned order.

¶19

7. As per the impugned order it appears that the victims who have been sought to be trafficked and in course thereof on the basis of the complaint made by their parents, they have got hold of.

¶20

8. Further, the charge sheet has already been submitted and even the charge was framed. The appellants are languishing in judicial custody since 10.04.2024 and have no criminal antecedents.

¶21

9. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that present appeal needs to be allowed.

¶22

10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.06.2024 passed in Bail Petition. No. 142 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj,

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

camp at Rajmahal is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶25

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

¶26

12. In consequence thereof, the appellants, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Rajmahal, in connection with Tinpahar P.S. Case No. 22 of 2024, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent themselves 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 appellants, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellants.

¶27

13. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶28

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶29

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶30

Samarth/

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Sanjhali Murmu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjhali Murmu 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

Prabha Devi Vs the Union of India, through Its Chairman, Railway Board

Union of India through General Manager East Central Railway Vs Ashok Kumar

Mahatam Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Chourasia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Radheshyam Badaik Vs the Union of India through National Investigation Agency

Nagendra Upadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand