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.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal is filed against the Order dated 05.12.2024, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO, Ranchi, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3033 of 2024, by which regular bail of the appellants has been rejected in connection with A.H.T.U. P.S. Case No.06 of 2024, corresponding to S.T. Case No.575 of 2024, for the offences under Sections 363 , 370 of I.P.C. and Section 79 of J.J. Act, pending in the Court of A.J.C.-IV, Ranchi

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that this is a case where no ingredient of Section 370 of I.P.C. is attracted, which would be evident from the statement so recorded of the Victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It has been contended that the statement of the victim which was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. will demonstrate that there is no intent or ingredient to attract the offence said to be committed under Section 370 of I.P.C.It has also been submitted that the appellants have already remained in custody for about Eight months since 14.06.2024.It is further submitted that the trial is going on, in which even though the Victim is not a chargesheeted witness, she has already been examined as P.W.1. Learned counsel submitted that since the Victim has already been examined, as such, now there is no chance of winning over the victim. Hence, prayer has been made to interfere with the impugned order.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order. It has been contended by referring to the First Information Report and the Case Diary that the nature of allegation against the appellants is serious and they have been found involved in trafficking of the minor, as such, it is not a case where the impugned order needs any interference.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the findings recorded by the learned Court below in the impugned order as also the Case Diary, which is in possession of the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. This Court has also gone through the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which has been appended as Annexure-2.

5. The matter was heard by this Court on 29.01.2025 and the learned counsel for the State took time on that day to go through the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

6. Learned State counsel, after going through the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and comparing it with the Case Diary, has submitted that there is no contradiction in the statement of the victim as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and taken note of in the Case Diary.

7. It appears that the appellants have already remained in custody for about Eight months since 14.06.2024 and also the Victim has already been examined as P.W.1. Moreover, the appellants have no criminal antecedent.

8. This Court, considering the aforesaid facts, is of the view that the appellants have been able to make out a case for grant of bail.

9. In consequence thereof, Order dated 05.12.2024, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO, Ranchi, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3033 of 2024 is set aside and the appellants above named, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO, Ranchi in connection with A.H.T.U. P.S. Case No.06 of 2024, corresponding to S.T. Case No.575 of 2024.

10. The appellants are to give an undertaking before the learned Court below of not