The court emphasized that mere accusations without evidence of exploitation do not justify denial of bail, particularly for an accused with no criminal antecedents.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 09.09.2024 passed in B.P. No. 1183 of 2024 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, FTC, Ranchi in connection with AHTU P. S. Case No. 10 of 2024 registered under Sections 137(2)/145 of the BNS, 2023 and under Sections 75/81 of the Juvenile Justice Act, now pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Ranchi whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.

2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that it is a case where even though no ingredient of Section137(2)/145 of the BNS, 2023 and under Sections 75/81 of the Juvenile Justice Act is attracted but the appellant has been taken into custody and he is languishing in judicial custody since19.07.2024.

3. It has further been contended that he has been implicated in this case because he is having the age of 19 years whereas others who was accompanying with him were in the age group of 15 to 17 years, however, they with the consent of their parents were going to earn livelihood along with the appellant and in that course the appellant has been apprehended and implicated in this case. Further submission has been made that the appellant was known to all other children and they are of the same locality. Furthermore, all the children have been taken back home by their respective parents without being any such compliant.

4. Therefore, submission has been made by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.

5. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the pocket of the appellant three railway tickets were recovered for carrying those minor children. Therefore, submission has been made that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground of innocence.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order.

7. We have considered the statement of parents of the children, alleged to have been kidnapped, as available in the case diary and found that no one has complained that the appellant in any way was involved in kidnapping of the children from the lawful guardianship rather it has come that the children who were in the age group of 15 to 17 on the wish of their parents had accompanied the appellant to earn livelihood.

8. Further, there is no evidence of exploitation as required to attract offence under Section 137 of the B.N.S., 2023. The appellant is having no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 19.07.2024.

9. In view thereof, the impugned order requires interference by this Court.

10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed in B.P. No. 1183 of 2024 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, FTC, Ranchi in connection with AHTU P. S. Case No. 10 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.

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

12. 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with AHTU P. S. Case No. 10 of 2024, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause; and shall not commit offence of the like nature. In failure, the learned cou