IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Nikki Kumari Wife Of Praveen Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in A.B.P. No. 497 of 2024 by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case no. 54 of 2023 registered under Sections 370, 370A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 75 and 81 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection)Act has been refused.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that even if the entire prosecution version will be accepted, no case is being made out attracting the ingredient of Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It has further been contended that the rejection of the pre-arrest bail is based upon the reference of the various paragraphs made in the case diary but if the entire case will be taken into consideration, then there is no ingredient of exploitation said to be attracted under Section 370 of IPC as the victim girl has been returned.
4. Learned counsel has further submitted that nothing has been said in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. either by the mother of the
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec. 370 of IPC, emphasizing the wide definition of 'exploitation' and the seriousness of offences involvi....
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 affirmed that sufficient evidence of kidnapping and trafficking existed, justifying the denial of bail despite the appellant's claims of innocence.
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 voluntary nature of the victim's actions and the absence of allegations of forcible sexual intercourse by the accused influenced the court's decision to grant anticipatory bail.
The victim's consent to the relationship negated the applicability of trafficking and rape charges, allowing for the granting of bail.
The court emphasized the right to a fair trial under Article 21, allowing bail due to prolonged custody and limited witness examination.
Anticipatory bail can only be granted in exceptional circumstances where the applicant is prima facie falsely implicated, considering the nature of accusations and facts of the case.
The severity of allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation are crucial factors in determining the grant of anticipatory bail.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.