1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1403 of 2024 ------ Lal Babu Mirdha, aged about 52 years, son of Late Kamala Mirdha, resident of village Basta, P.O Baniyadih, P.S.-Thakur Gangti, District- Godda, State-Jharkhand. …. …. 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. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, APP ------ 05/Dated: 23.01.2025 1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated 08.08.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.292 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, in connection with S.T. Case No.162 of 2019, arising out of Borio(M) P.S. Case No.154 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.324 of 2014, registered for the offence under Sections 370, 374 and 371 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 even if the entire prosecution version will be taken to be correct, no ingredient of Section 370 of the IPC is being attracted. It has been submitted that the victim has returned back and as per the allegation, he has been said to be dumb and deaf but he is not dumb and deaf which has also been authenticated. 2 3. It has further been submitted that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 08.05.2024 as also he is having no criminal antecedent. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is a fit case to interfere with the order impugned. 5. While on the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail by showing interference with the impugned order dated 08.08.2024. 6. It has been contended that the trial is at progress, as would be evident from the impugned order, wherein, it has been referred about examination of one witness, i.e., the informant. 7. It has further been contended that taking into consideration the nature of allegation and the complicity of the appellant in the present case, it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order while rejecting the prayer for regular bail. 9. As per the material available in the case diary, the victim, the male child, has been said to be deaf and subsequently, he was returned back to his native place. 10. The question of attracting the ingredients of Section 370 of the IPC is the basis of argument, for which, we have considered the material available in the case diary and found therefrom that the male 3 child on his own wish, has gone in search of his livelihood and thereafter, returned back to his native place as would be evident from testimony of P.W.1, appended as Annexure-3 to the paper book. 11. The co-accused, namely, Dewari Rai @ Diwary Ray has already been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 01.04.2014 passed in B.A. No.10474 of 2015. As per the status report, the trial is going on and out of 7 witnesses, 5 witnesses are to be examined 12. The appellant is having no criminal antecedent and the male child has returned back to his native place as he has gone to earn livelihood on his own wish. Moreover, the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 08.05.2024. 13. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.08.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.292 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, is hereby quashed and set aside. 15. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 16. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, in connection with S.T. Case No.162 of 2019, arising out of Borio(M) P.S. Case No.154 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.324 of 2014. Since the trial is in progress, as such, the bail is subject to the conditions that the appellant shall appear on each and every date and shall co-operate in the trial and 4 shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause. Such direction is being passed so that the trial is being concluded without any delay. In failure, the learned trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial, be not hindered and further that one of the bailors should be close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant. 17. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Rohit/-