JUDGMENT :

1. Facts of the present case are disturbing which indicate that this case is of immoral child trafficking. Victim is a minor girl aged about 14 to 15 years and was working as an scavenger. According to F.I.R., lodged by father of victim, she was missing since 29.9.2020 and one of the co-accused Chhabinath was a suspected person that he has enticed the victim and kidnapped her from lawful guardianship.

2. It appears that victim returned on 25.2.2022 i.e. after 1 year 5 months. Statement of victim were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she narrated her entire ordeal of repeated sexual assault and how she was sold from one accused to another.

3. According to victim, her ordeal of immoral trafficking was commenced when co-accused Gaurav alias Sonu kept her for about 45 days in a house belonging to his brother where he repeatedly raped her and later on sold to present applicant for Rs. 60,000/-.

4. Thereafter, applicant solemnised marriage with victim and she stayed for about 1 year along with him and thereafter co-accused Gaurav again contacted her and sold to other co-accused viz., Surendra Kumar Singh @ Shani for Rs. 50,000/- where she again lived as his wife for about 3-4 months, however, he repeatedly assaulted her and on one day, victim slipped away from that place and when she met co-accused Rinku. The victim solemnised Court marriage with him and lived there as husband and wife and thereafter was traced from his house.

5. Sri Nagendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that applicant has not purchased the victim on payment, rather they lived together as husband and wife after solemnizing marriage without any force and she left his company on her own will. In the statements also, victim has not stated that applicant has committed any cruelty with her or he assaulted her or entered into physical relationship against her will. He is not part of any child trafficking.

6. Learned counsel has also submitted that co-accused Surendra Kumar @ Shani, who has been alleged by victim that not only he married to her but he assaulted her also, has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, applicant who is in jail since 16.10.2022 may be released on bail.

7. Sri Sunil Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for State as well as Ms. Maimoona Fatima, learned counsel for High Court Legal Services Committee have opposed the bail and submitted that it was a case of child trafficking, wherein victim was sold to accused persons one after another and accused persons have solemnised marriage of convenience with victim and sexually assaulted the victim also. All accused persons were acting like a gang and one of the co-accused (Gaurav) was kingpin, who acted like a broker. The victim has narrated her ordeal in details in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Therefore, applicant may not be released on bail and this Court may deal with accused persons strictly.

8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

9. LAW ON BAIL - A SUMMARY

(A) The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail.

(B) Power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is of wide amplitude but not an unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course or in whimsical manner.

(C) While passing an order on an application for grant of bail, there is no need to record elaborate details to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal. However, a Court cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as allegations made against accused; nature and gravity of accusation; having common object or intention; severity of punishment if allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced by accused; tampering of evidence; character, behaviour, means, position and standing of ac