IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, JJ
Arun Kumar @ Arun Turi S/o Late Runu Turi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega in Misc. Cri. Application No.157 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with S.T. Case No. 66 of 2019 (A) arising out of Simdega A.H.T.U P.S. Case No.18 of 2015 registered for the offence under Sections 363, 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 23/26 of J.J. Act has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the implication of the appellant is based upon falsity, since, no overt act has been said to be there if the entire case diary and the counter affidavit is to be taken into consideration.
3. It has been contended in course of the argument that only allegation against the present appellant is that at the inception he has only carried the victim for the purpose of providing her job at Delhi thereafter his work has finished and since then the appellant is not knowing whereabouts of the victim. But this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while
The denial of bail was justified due to the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing search for the victim, highlighting the need for careful consideration in such cases.
The court emphasized that significant delays in filing an FIR and the absence of criminal antecedents are critical factors in bail considerations.
The court emphasized that the lack of commitment and framing of charges, along with previous acquittal, justified granting 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.
A court may grant bail if the duration of custody is excessive, especially when co-accused are released, and substantial evidence supporting charges is lacking.
The court emphasized that lack of incriminating evidence and the victim's statement warranted granting bail, highlighting the importance of fair treatment in custody cases.
The court emphasized the right to a fair trial under Article 21, allowing bail due to prolonged custody and limited witness examination.
The presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty must prevail unless substantial evidence suggests the accused's involvement in the crime.
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.
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; personal liberty must be prioritized in absence of substantial evidence against the accused.
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.