Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Samrita Devi Wife Of Dilip Gwala – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008, is directed against the order dated 28.05.2024 passed in Misc. Cri. Application No. 214 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega, whereby and where under prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected for the offence registered under Section under Section 363, 370(5) of the I.P.C and Sections 75 /81 of the Juvenile Justice Act in connection with S.T. Case No. 12 of 2024 arising out of Simdega A.H.T.U. P.S. Case No. 02 of 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are no ingredients so as to attract the offence said to have been committed by the appellant under Section 363, 370(5) of the I.P.C. and other allied sections under Section 75 /81 of the Juvenile Justice Act .
3. Such submission has been made on the ground that there is no intent of exploitation rather the girls (victim) on their own had accompanied the present appellant for the purpose of earning their livelihood.
4. The contention has been made that appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 31.08.2023.
5. It has been further contended on behalf of the appellant
The court emphasized the right to a fair trial under Article 21, allowing bail due to prolonged custody and limited witness examination.
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 principle of parity in bail decisions, allowing bail for the appellant due to prolonged custody and similarity to co-accused cases.
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 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 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 affirmed that sufficient evidence of kidnapping and trafficking existed, justifying the denial of bail despite the appellant's claims of innocence.
The court can grant bail if the appellant is in custody for an extended period without charge framing, despite serious allegations and criminal antecedents.
The Principle of Parity in bail applications requires careful consideration of the specific roles and allegations against the accused, rather than a simplistic comparison with co-accused.
The court ruled that prolonged judicial custody and slow trial progress justified granting bail, balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
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
