IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1006of 2024 -------- SuhanaBegam, aged about 22 years, Wife of Sk. Reyazul Rahman, resident of Village : MadhiBrahampur, PO & PS Chari Chhak, District-Puri, Odisha ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1022 of 2024 -------- NudratJahan, aged about 40 years, Wife of Ajijul Khan, resident of Madhibrahmapur, PO Nuapatna, P.S. and District-Puri (Odisha) ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR -------- For the Appellant :Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey,APP Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP -------- Order No. 06/ Dated: 30th January, 2025 1. Both these appeals have been taken up together with the consent of the parties. These instant appeals filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, are directed against the order dated 20.07.2024 passed in B.P. No.873 of 2024 so far as it relates to Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1006 of 2024 and order dated 20.07.2024 passed in BP No.831 of 2024 so far as it relates to appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1022 of 2024by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX, Ranchiby which the prayer for regular bail of the appellants in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.107 of 2024, registered under Sections 363, 370(4)/34 of IPC, have been rejected. 2. It has jointly been contended on behalf of the appellant, namely, Suhana Begamin in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1006 of 2024 and appellant, namely, Nudrat Jahan in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1022 of 2024 that it is a case where due to wrong notion, the implication of the present appellants have been made even though they are not directly involved in kidnapping/abduction of the minor child having the age of 09 months. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the fact of the case is that Suhana Begam was having no child and for that she has made 2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1006 of 2024 With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1022 of 2024 request to the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1022 of 2024, namely, Nudrat Jahan to provide a child for nourishment and Nudrat Jahan has got a child of the victim herein by the three persons having been involved in the abduction of the minor, namely, Amit Santan Pal, Radha Sahu &Tikki @ Sunil Mishra @ Sunil Sahu. All the three persons have carried the abducted child, minor and through the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1022 of 2024, namely, Nudrat Jahan, the minor has been handed over to Suhana Begam, appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1006 of 2024 although in lieu thereof money has been received by the said Nudrat Jahan, the appellant in Cr. App. (DB) No. 1022 of 2024. 4. Learned counsel appearing for both the appellants has submitted that minor was kept in bona fide impression without any specific knowledge of the fact that the minor was stolen but the moment they came to know about the fact that the minor was stolen one thereafter they have handed over the minor so as to be handed over to their original parents. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the child has already been handed over to the parents and the trial has commenced but as yet only one witness has been examined even though both the appellants are languishing in judicial custody since 19.05.2024, having no criminal antecedents. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants in view of the aforesaid fact has submitted that the impugned orders may be interfered with so that both the appellants, ladies having their own commitments towards their house particularly the appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1022 of 2024, namely Nudrat Jahan is mother of three children. 7. While on the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned orders. It has been submitted that both the appellants were conscious with the fact that the minor was stolen by three persons, namely, Amit Santan Pal, Radha Sahu & Tikki @ Sunil Mishra @ Sunil Sahuand thereafter as a remuneration, a sum of Rs. 58,500/- has also been paid in favour of the three persons in lieu of taking over the child. 8. Learned State Counsel has further submitted that the nature of crime 3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1006 of 2024 With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1022 of 2024 being the serious and as such the ingredient of Section 370 is being attracted and after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the impugned orders have been passed by learned Court as such needs no interference. 9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned orders as also the case diary. 10. This Court in order to appreciate the argument has gone through the case diary and found, particularly from para 33 thereof that three persons namely, Amit Santan Pal, Radha Sahu &Tikki @ Sunil Mishra @ Sunil Sahu have stolen the minor from the Railway Station at Ranchi and subsequent thereto, the minor was sold out to Nudrat Jahan, the appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1022 of 2024 so as to be handed over to Suhana Begam, the appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1006 of 2024. 11. This Court has therefore found that a specific allegation of stealing the minor is upon three persons namely, Amit Santan Pal, Radha Sahu & Tikki @ Sunil Mishra @ Sunil Sahu as per paragraph 33. 12. The appellants although has taken the minor but the moment they came to know the fact about the predicaments of the parents and thereafter they have handed over the minor so as to be handed over to their original parents. Both the appellants are having no criminal antecedents and languishing in judicial custody since 19.05.2024. So far as the status of the case is concerned, only one witness has been examined. 13. This Court considering the aforesaid facts is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 14. Accordingly, the orders dated 20.07.2024passed in B.P. No. 873 of 2024 and B.P. No.831 of 2024 in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.107 of 2024, are hereby quashed and set aside. 15. In view thereof, the instant appeals stand allowed. 16. In consequence thereof, the appellants, 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 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.107 of 2024 subject to the condition that both the 4 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1006 of 2024 With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1022 of 2024 appellants are required to appear as and when required before the trial Court and to cooperate in the trial, in case of any non-cooperation, it is left open upon the learned trial Court to take appropriate measure by cancelling the bail bond in accordance with law. 17. Accordingly, the instant appeals stand disposed of (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Basant/S.Das