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 allegations.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Vacation Judge, Giridih in B.P. No. 587 of 2024, by which the prayer for grant of regular bail of the appellant in connection with Lokainayanpur P.S. Case No.08 of 2024 registered under Sections 143 (5)/145 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNS ), has been rejected.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that he has been implicated for commission of offence under Section 143 (5) of BNS , 2023 but if the entire version of the first information report will be taken into consideration, there is no ingredient of Section 143 (5) of BNS .

3. It has been contended by referring to the case diary containing the statement of the parents of the victim children wherein also they have not stated that they, without the consent of their parents, were being taken to Surat.

4. It has been contended that however, in the mid-way, all the so called trafficked children have been apprehended and sent to their house.

5. The contention, therefore, has been made that in view thereof, since there is no ingredient of the offence said to be committed under Section 143 (5) BNS , the prayer of the appellant for grant of regular bail has been rejected without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact.

6. The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 15.08.2024. The chargesheet has already been submitted and the case is at the stage of trial but not a single witness has been examined as yet in spite of summons having been issued to them.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

8. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order.

9. It has been contended that some of the children were minor and they have been lured by giving some remuneration in lieu of the work which was to be performed by one or the other children but in course thereof, the children were apprehended and they have been carried to their house.

10. It has been contended that the appellant is having one criminal antecedent of like nature.

11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that, therefore, it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order.

13. This Court, in order to examine the ingredient of Section 143 (5) of BNS which is available or not, has gone through the case diary, which this Court has called for vide order dated 17.01.2025, particularly paragraph-28 onwards which contains the statement of the parents and the children.

14. It is evident therefrom that none of the parents of the children have stated that without their consent the children were being sought to be carried to Surat rather the parents all along have stated that the children were sought to be carried to Surat in lieu of the work. The similar is the statement of the children also.

15. It is also evident that the appellant is in custody since 15.08.2024 and the case has been shown to be at the stage of trial but even in spite of issuance of summons, none of the witness have yet been examined although the number of witnesses is 10 (t