Mukesh Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, at the outset, has submitted that due to inadvertence and typographical error, wrong statement has been made at paragraph – 6 of the counter affidavit which he wants to withdraw.

Considering the same, the said statement is allowed to be withdrawn and as such, the same is deleted.

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in Bail Petition No.637 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with S.T. (Spt.) Case No.34 of 2024 arising out of A.H.T.U. Gumla P.S. Case No.36 of 2014, registered for the offence under Sections 366(A), 367, 370, 371 and 372 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 26 of the J.J. Act, under Section 16 of the Bonded Labour Act and Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic Act, has been rejected.

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the F.I.R. has been instituted after three years from the date of occurrence.

It has further been submitted that the victim has been recovered.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant is having no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 30.08.2024.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the case is at the stage of evidence and the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since long.

Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

While on the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order.

It has been contended by referring to the First Information Report that the nature of allegation against the appellant is serious and, as such, it is not a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the case diary.

It is evident from the material available on record as also the case diary that the F.I.R. has been instituted after a lapse of three years.

Further, the victim has been recovered. The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 30.08.2024 having no criminal antecedent and, as such, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

Accordingly order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in Bail Petition No.637 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.

In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

Accordingly, 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla, in connection with S.T. (Spt.) Case No.34 of 2024 arising out of A.H.T.U. Gumla P.S. Case No.36 of 2014, 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. Subject to further condition that one of the bailors should be the father/near relative of the appellant. In failure, the learned trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered.

The instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.