The victim's consent to the relationship negated the applicability of trafficking and rape charges, allowing for the granting of bail.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in B.P. No. 351 of 2024, whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail in connection with Netarhat P.S. Case No.10 of 2024 registered under Sections 370, 376, 367, 366/34 of Indian Penal Code, has been rejected.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case where none of the ingredients either of section 370 or section 376 of Indian Penal Code or any other criminal offences under which the FIR was instituted, is attracted, even if the entire prosecution story is taken into consideration.

3. It has further been contended that with the consent of the victim, the physical relationship has been established and hence, it is not a case of trafficking so as to attract the criminal offences in the case under section 370 of Indian Penal Code or section 376 of IPC thereof.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the above ground, has submitted that it is a case where the impugned order may be interfered with.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail and it has been contended that the nature of allegation is serious and it is not a case only under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code but also the victim has been subjected to rape, and therefore, the case under Section 376 of IPC has also been instituted. As such, submission has been made, that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

6. We have gone through the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also on appreciation of argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties, has found from the materials available on record particularly the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, which has been called for vide order dated 05.12.2024, wherein, the girl has stated in specific word that she was having friendship with the appellant and also has solemnized marriage with him and wants to live with him, but her father does not allow to do that and on his behest, this case has been instituted.

7. This court, considering the statement of the victim girl so recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, is of the view that it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

8. Accordingly, the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in B.P. No. 351 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.

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

10. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is 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 Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Latehar in connection with Netarhat P.S. Case No.10 of 2024 subject to the condition that the appellant will co-operate 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 appellant and in case of his/her father being no more, a close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant.

11. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.