The court ruled that the lack of criminal antecedents and prolonged custody justified granting bail, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence in serious allegations.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in B.P. No. 51/2024 by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellants in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case no. 31 of 2024 registered under Sections 370(3), 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been rejected.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that it is case where the appellants have falsely been implicated and there is no ingredient of Section 370(3) of the Indian Penal Code is available in this case.

3. It is submitted that the child has been found in the custody of the present appellants, since she was in the impression that the child, that was not looked after properly and as soon as the FIR lodged and the petitioners-accused persons came to know about the facts of the FIR without any suppression and concealment handed-over the child to the parents and she is still in custody of her biological parents.

4. It has further been submitted that the appellants are languishing in judicial custody since 14.02.2024 and there is no criminal antecedents.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned order may be interfered with so that the appellants may come out from the judicial custody.

6. While on the other hand, Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail.

7. It has been contended that the nature of the allegation is serious since 8 months old child has been found with the present appellants which has been purchased after a payment of Rs. 90,000/-.

8. As such, the learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court as also the case diary and antecedents report while considering the prayer for regular bail.

10.This Court, considering the fact that the appellants have already remained in custody since 14.02.2024 and they are having no criminal antecedents as per the report furnished by the State which is available on record and the charge have also been framed, is of the view that it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

11.Accordingly, the order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in B.P. No. 51/2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.

12.In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

13.In consequence thereof, the appellants, above named, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case no. 31/2024 subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate in the trial and shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to take appropriate course in accordance with law and; further subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be the father of the appellants and in case of his/her father being no more, a close relative of the appellants, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellants.

14.Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.