Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Shamed Sk. S/o Saiful Sk. – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
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 submi
The court affirmed that sufficient evidence of kidnapping and trafficking existed, justifying the denial of bail despite the appellant's claims of innocence.
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 ruled that the lack of evidence substantiating the charges under Section 143 (5) BNS warranted the granting of bail, emphasizing the importance of parental consent in trafficking allegation....
The court emphasized the right to a fair trial under Article 21, allowing bail due to prolonged custody and limited witness examination.
The court ruled that consent from the victim and her mother negated the exploitation element necessary for trafficking under Section 370 IPC, justifying the granting of anticipatory bail.
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 found no prima facie case for kidnapping or abduction as the complainant consented to the adoption of his grandchildren, leading to the quashing of the bail rejection order.
The court emphasized that significant delays in filing an FIR and the absence of criminal antecedents are critical factors in bail considerations.
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
