The court affirmed that sufficient evidence of kidnapping and trafficking existed, justifying the denial of bail despite the appellant's claims of innocence.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21 (4) of the NATIONAL INVESTIGATION ACT , 2008 is directed against the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in Bail Petition No. 210 of 2024 by which the prayer for grant of regular bail of the appellant in connection with GRPS/Barharwa (P.P. Pakur) Case No. 38/2024 corresponding to Railway G.R. Case No. 62/2024 registered under Sections 137 (2), 143(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), 2023 and Section 75 /81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, has been rejected.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where no ingredient of Section 137 (2), 143(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.) and also Section 75 /81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is available but even then the appellant has been implicated in the present case.

3. It has been submitted that the appellant has been dragged in the instant case mere on suspicion, conjecture and surmise and he is in custody since15.07.2024 and further the appellant having no criminal antecedent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

5. While on the other hand, Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P appearing for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order and has relied upon the statement of the children who have sought to be trafficked, recorded under various Paragraph of the case diary particularly paragraph 41 onward.

6. It has been submitted by referring to the statement recorded in Para-59, 60, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, and 75 of the parents of the children have stated that without their consent their children have been taken.

7. It has been contended by referring the said statements made by the parents that when there is admission on the part of the parents of taking away their children hence, it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take a ground that it is not a case of the abduction and thereby not a case of trafficking.

8. Learned State counsel, based upon their aforesaid grounds, has submitted that by taking into consideration the aforesaid facts the learned trial court has refused to grant privilege of bail to the present appellant, therefore the order impugned cannot said to be suffer from infirmities and as such, the present appeal is fit to be dismissed.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court below in the impugned order as well the case diary.

10. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant has taken the ground of ingredients having not been attracted either of the kidnapping or trafficking.

11. However, the basis of such submission is the reference of the statement made at Paragraph 41 onward wherein, statement of the children, amongst whom, nine (09) are minor and two (2) are adults.

12. We have considered the statement made therein and found that they have stated that they were being carried out by the present appellant for the purpose of providing jobs.

13. This Court has considered the statements of the parents recorded in Para 42, 59, 60, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, from where it is evident that the parents have refused by saying that no consent was given to the appellants to carry out the children rather they have stated that without their consent, their children have been taken away by the present appellant.

14. It is further evident f