IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, JJ
Laxman Bharti @ Laxu Bharti – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 , is directed against the order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1203 of 2024 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Chatra in connection with Kundu P. S. Case No. 42 of 2022 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 74 of 2024, registered under Sections 363, 376, 376D, 323, 370 , 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 6 of the POCSO Act ; whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the implication of the present appellant is totally false since there is no direct evidence said to have attracted any ingredient of Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code . Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant has been implicated in this case on mere suspicion and languishing in judicial custody since 19.08.2024.
3. Therefore, submission has been made by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.
4. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submit
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 victim's consent to the relationship negated the applicability of trafficking and rape charges, allowing for the granting of bail.
The court emphasized the right to a fair trial under Article 21, allowing bail due to prolonged custody and limited witness examination.
Suspension of sentence granted based on inconsistent evidence regarding alleged rape, thus enabling bail.
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 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 gravity of the offences and adverse social implications influenced the court's decision to dismiss the bail application.
The court affirmed that sufficient evidence of kidnapping and trafficking existed, justifying the denial of bail despite the appellant's claims of innocence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec. 370 of IPC, emphasizing the wide definition of 'exploitation' and the seriousness of offences involvi....
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.