The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1083 of 2024 -------- 1. 2. 3. Irshad Ansari, aged about 35 years, Son of Md. Jalil Ansari, Resident of Village-Kanchanpur, P.O. & P.S. – Ranka, Dist.- Garhwa Aslam Ansari, aged about 18 years, Son of Nejam Ansari, Resident of – Ward No.2, Village – Khura, P.O. & P.S. – Ranka, Dist. Garhwa. Anup Kumar @ Anup Kumar Korwa, aged about 26 years, son of Chandrika Korwa, Resident of – Ward No.4, Village- Chiniya, P.O. & P.S. – Chiniya, Dist.- Garhwa. The State of Jharkhand .. ... Appellants … … Respondent Versus -----
Legal Reasoning
10. This Court in order to appreciate the propriety of the order passed by the learned Trial Court so far as relates to Irshad Ansari is concerned who is the contractor involved in carrying out in the matter of trafficking for the question of applicability of Section 370 of IPC is concerned, is of the view that since he is having criminal antecedent also being Chiniya P.S. Case No.08 of 2020 and also is a contractor used in trafficking as per the prosecution version and as such, the custodial interrogation is required. 11. Considering the aforesaid fact, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant the benefit of bail in apprehension of arrest so far as Irshad Ansari is concerned. 12. Accordingly, the decision so taken by the learned Trial Court so far as relates to Irshad Ansari-appellant No.1 is concerned needs no interference. 13. So far as the case of appellant No.2, namely, Aslam Ansari who is the munsi and appellant No.3, namely, Anup Kumar @ Anup Kumar 2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1083 of 2024 Korwa, who as per the prosecution version is the local villager is concerned, it is evident from the case diary that Anup Kumar @ Anup Kumar Korwa has brought the victims to their residence. It further appears that Aslam Ansari, who was said to be Munsi attached to the appellant No.1, namely, Irshad Ansari to act on the dictate of Irshad Ansari and having no specific attributability as has been pointed out in Para No.2, 5, 6, 25, 26, 27, & 49 of the case diary. Further so far as Anup Kumar @ Anup Kumar Korwa is concerned he being the villager has also not been attributability said to attract the offence under Sections 370(2), 370(3) 370(4) and 374 of the IPC, rather, he had accompanied the victims facilitating them to return to their homes. 14. This Court in view of the aforesaid is of the view that the learned Trial Court ought to have taken into consideration by considering the fact that the prima facie case is made out in favour of appellant No.2, namely, Aslam Ansari and appellant No.3, namely, Anup Kumar @ Anup Kumar Korwa for the purpose of grant of benefit of bail in apprehension of arrest. 15. As such, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Trial Court so far as relates to the appellant No.2, namely, Aslam Ansari and appellant No.3, namely, Anup Kumar @ Anup Kumar Korwa respectively are concerned, the same needs to be interfered with. 16. Accordingly, order dated 18.07.2024 passed in A.B.A No.520 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Meral P.S. Case No.92 of 2024 so far as appellant No.2, namely, Aslam Ansari and appellant No.3, namely, Anup Kumar @ Anup Kumar Korwa are concerned is hereby quashed and set aside. 17. In view thereof, the instant appeal stand partly allowed. 18. In consequence thereof, the appellant No.2, namely, Aslam Ansari and appellant No.3, namely, Anup Kumar @ Anup Kumar Korwa, above named, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Meral P.S. Case No.92 of 2024 3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1083 of 2024 subject to the condition that the appellants will cooperate in the investigation and shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to take appropriate course in accordance with law. 19. So far as appellant No.1, namely, Irshad Ansari is concerned, he is to surrender within two weeks.
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR -------- For the Appellants For the State : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate : Mrs. Priay Shreshtha, Spl.PP Order No. 03/ Dated: 16th October, 2024 -------- Case diary and criminal antecedent of the appellants and status of the case along with the statement as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. under sealed cover from the Court concerned has been called for vide order date 28.08.2024. 2. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in A.B.A No.520 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Meral P.S. Case No.92 of 2024, whereby and wherein prayer for anticipatory bail in apprehension of arrest of the appellants in connection with Meral P.S. Case No.92 of 2024 registered under Sections 370(2), 370(3) 370(4) and 374 of the IPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the learned Trial Court while rejecting the prayer for Anticipatory Bail has not taken into consideration that none of the ingredient of Section 370 IPC is available on the basis of the quotation made in the F.I.R. 4. It has been submitted that there is no coercion, compulsion, servitude, so as the conduct of the appellants is said to be under the code of exploitation as has been dealt with under Section 370 of the IPC. 5. It has been further contended that the learned trial Court has rejected the prayer for Anticipatory Bail on consideration of the material so collected as referred in para 25, 26, 27, and 49 of the case diary but if the aforesaid para will be taken into consideration even then it cannot be said that the ingredient of Section 370 of the IPC is being attracted. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned order therefore needs to be interfered with. 7. While on the other hand, Mrs. Priay Shreshtha, learned Speial Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 8. It has further been contended by the learned State counsel that the Irshad Ansari is the contractor and who deeply involved in the issue of trafficking. Further, he is also having criminal antecedent. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding of the learned trial Court in the impugned order as also the case diary.
Decision
20. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Basant/S.Das 4 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1083 of 2024