The court emphasized that lack of incriminating evidence and the victim's statement warranted granting bail, highlighting the importance of fair treatment in custody cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave has been sought for to accept the counter affidavit filed in pursuance of the order dated 16.10.2024. A copy of the same has said to be served upon the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has received the copy of the counter affidavit.

3. Considering the same, let the copy of counter affidavit be taken on record.

4. The instant Criminal Appeal preferred on behalf of appellant under section 21(4) of the National Investigating Act, is directed against the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in B.P. No.157 of 2024 in connection with AHTU P.S. Case No.02 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa registered under Sections 370, 370(A) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and Section 14(1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulations) Act, 2016, whereby the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.

5. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated even though name of the appellant has been transpired in the First Information Report but there is no complicity said to attract the offence committed under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. It has been submitted that merely on the ground that he was living with one of named perpetrator, namely, Laxmi Birua, in her absence, the amount to the tune of Rs.35,000/- has been handed over to him, that is the reason, the appellant has been implicated in the instant case.

7. It has been submitted that save and accept no incriminating material has come so far as the present appellant is concerned.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted by referring to the paragraph Nos.113 and 114 of the case diary where the reference of the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is there wherein she has stated that she (the victim) on her own has gone to earn the money.

9. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the aforesaid aspect of the matter since has not been considered by the learned Court, therefore, the present appeal.

10. In addition to that the ground of custody has also been taken since the appellant has been languishing in judicial custody since 23.06.2024 in a case where the charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no criminal antecedent against the appellant.

11. While on the other hand, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by showing no interference with the impugned order.

12. It has been contended by referring to the First Information Report wherein the direct complicity has come against the appellant of taking money of Rs.35,000/-which has been accepted by him in lieu of trafficking of the said victim. However, she is fair enough to admit the fact that in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as available in the paragraph Nos.114 of the case diary, the victim has not disclosed the name of the present appellant.

13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment and also the case diary as available in lower Court records.

14. This Court in order to appreciate the argument has gone through the First Information Report wherefrom it is evident that the amount of Rs.35,000/- has been handed over in favour of the present appellant. The plea has been taken on behalf of the appellant that since the main perpetrator was Laxmi Birua and since she was not available in the house, therefore, the amount has been given.

15. We at this stage cannot consider the defence of the present appellant, however, we after going through the case diary pa