Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Soma Hunni Purti @ Soma Purti S/o Birsa Hunni Purti – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated 21.08.2024 passed in Bail Petition No.191/2024 by the learned D.A.S.J.-I, Khunti, in connection with Khunti (AHTU) P.S. Case No.02 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 363, 370(4) and 506 of the I.P.C., whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that as per the prosecution version, the victim has been said to be missing sometime in the year, 2006. The FIR has been instituted in the year, 2023, i.e., after lapse of about 17 years. It has been submitted that the appellant is having no idea about the victim and he is not at all involved in trafficking of the said victim.
3. The argument has been advanced that due to long lapse in instituting the FIR, it cannot be said that any ingredient of Section 370(4) of the IPC is being attracted. The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 26.06.2024 and he is having no criminal antecedent as also the charge-sheet against the appellant has already been submitted.
4. The ground, therefore, ha
The court emphasized that significant delays in filing an FIR and the absence of criminal antecedents are critical factors in bail considerations.
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 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 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 emphasized the right to a fair trial under Article 21, allowing bail due to prolonged custody and limited witness examination.
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 held that the appellant, having no criminal history and being in custody since July 2024, is entitled to bail, especially as the victims were recovered from a co-accused who was granted bai....
The denial of bail was justified due to the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing search for the victim, highlighting the need for careful consideration in such cases.
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.
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
