1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1446 of 2024 ----- Reyajuddin Ansari @ Reyaz Ansari, aged about 25 years, S/o Ali Hassan @ Alihussain Miyan, R/o-Benidih, P.O. & P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Palamu, Jharkhand-822110. … … 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. Faiz Ur Rahman, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. ------ Order No. 03/Dated 21st January, 2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned A.J.C.- IV-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi in Misc. Cri. App. No.2804 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with S.T. No.669 of 2024 arising out of AHTU P.S. Case No.03 of 2024(s), registered for the offence under Sections 363, 370, 420, 467 and 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 14 of Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated. 3. Emphasis has been given by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that out of 16 witnesses, none 2 of the witness has yet been examined, yet the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 26.07.2024. 4. It has also been submitted that there is no criminal history of the present appellant. 5. Further, as per the prosecution version, it is evident that no ingredient of Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code will be said to be attracted. 6. So far as the issue of commission of forgery is concerned, the appellant has already remained in custody for about seven months and due to non-examination of the witnesses, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial at an early date. 7. In addition to the above, the ground has also been taken that the identically placed co-accused namely, Sunesh Kachhap has been directed to be released by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1324 of 2024. 8. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order may be interfered with by taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects of the matter. 9. While on the other hand, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order. 3 10. It has been contended that the allegation against the present appellant is serious since he has not only found to be involved in commission of crime attracting the ingredients of Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, rather, he has also committed forgery by showing age of the minor as major by making manipulation in the Aadhaar Card of the minors who have been sought to be trafficked and, as such, no privilege of bail is to be granted in favour of the appellant. 11. While responding to the same, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 26.07.2024 and even though the charge has been framed on 21.11.2024, but as per his instruction, not a single witness has been produced before the court as yet. 12. 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 based upon which the affidavit-in-objection has been filed on behalf of the State. 13. This Court has found from the material as collected in course of investigation, as recorded in the case diary that the victims who have been sought to be trafficked, had been found to be in company with the co-accused, namely, 4 Sunesh Kachhap but with the consent of their parents for the purpose of earning livelihood. 14. So far as the allegation against the present appellant is concerned, he has been found to be involved in manipulation of Aadhaar Card by showing the enhanced age of the victims. 15. The appellant is in custody since 26.07.2024 having no criminal antecedent and as per the status report dated 11.12.2024 there is no progress in the trial since out of 16 witnesses, none of the witness has been examined and further, one co-accused, namely, Sunesh Kachhap has already been directed to be released by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1324 of 2024. 16. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, is of the view that impugned order needs to be interfered with. 17. Accordingly order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned A.J.C.-IV-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi in Misc. Cri. App. No.2804 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside. 18. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 19. Accordingly, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of 5 Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.J.C.-IV-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi, in connection with S.T. No.669 of 2024 arising out of AHTU P.S. Case No.03 of 2024(s), subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall appear before the trial court on each and every date failing which the bail bond of the appellant shall be cancelled. 20. The instant criminal appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Birendra/