Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Reshma Swasi @ Reshma Kumari @ Rudan Kumari, D/o. Buddhu Swasi @ Buddhu Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Order :
1.The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in B.P. No.187 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Ahtu P.S. Case No.05 of 2020, registered for the offences under Sections 363 /365/370-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 5 of the I.T.P. Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where none of the ingredients of the penal offences i.e. Sections 363 /365/370-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 5 of the I.T.P. Act is attracted.
3. It has been submitted that as per the allegation, the victim girls have been carried for the purpose of providing employment but subsequent thereto both of them have returned back to their native place. The ground of custody has also been taken, since, the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 12.08.2024. The appellant is having no criminal antecedent. Charge-sheet has already been submitted.
3. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it
The court emphasized that lack of criminal antecedents and the return of the victims substantiate the case for granting bail despite serious charges under IPC and ITP Act.
The court emphasized the right to a fair trial under Article 21, allowing bail due to prolonged custody and limited witness examination.
The court emphasized that mere accusations without evidence of exploitation do not justify denial of bail, particularly for an accused with no criminal antecedents.
The court can grant bail if the appellant is in custody for an extended period without charge framing, despite serious allegations and criminal antecedents.
Prolonged judicial custody without trial progress and lack of incriminating evidence can justify granting bail, emphasizing the right to timely justice under Article 21.
The court determined that the absence of trafficking elements in the victim's statement warranted bail, emphasizing the importance of fair trial rights and the duration of custody.
The court emphasized the principle of parity in bail decisions, allowing bail for the appellant due to prolonged custody and similarity to co-accused cases.
The court upheld the trial court's denial of bail, citing substantial evidence from the victim's consistent statements supporting serious charges against the appellant.
The court determined that prior bail grants for co-accused and lack of substantial evidence justified the appellant's release on bail.
Appellate courts can intervene in bail decisions where delays in trial proceedings occur, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar serious allegations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
