Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Sunil Rana, son of Shri Nageshwar Rana @ Gundan Rana – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
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
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 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 emphasized the right to a fair trial under Article 21, allowing bail due to prolonged custody and limited witness examination.
The court ruled that the lack of criminal antecedents and prolonged custody justified granting bail, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence in serious allegations.
The court emphasized that lack of criminal antecedents and the return of the victims substantiate the case for granting bail despite serious charges under IPC and ITP Act.
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 lack of substantive evidence justifies the grant of bail under strict conditions.
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
