IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ
Amit Bhuiyan @ Amit Bhuiya, son of Shri. Jhabar Bhuiya – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
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, lea
The victim's consent to the relationship negated the applicability of trafficking and rape charges, allowing for the granting of 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.
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 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 court emphasized that significant delays in filing an FIR and the absence of criminal antecedents are critical factors in bail considerations.
Bail granted under conditions for offenses related to minors and trafficking.
The gravity of the offences and adverse social implications influenced the court's decision to dismiss the bail application.
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 affirmed that sufficient evidence of kidnapping and trafficking existed, justifying the denial of bail despite the appellant's claims of innocence.
Consistency in witness statements and the accused's criminal background can influence the court's decision on bail applications in serious criminal cases.
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.