Budhu Oraon vs The State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 363, 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 23 / 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2000..

The prosecution case is that the informant has alleged therein that 10 years back her daughter Nirmala Kullu aged about 10 years on the false pretext and assurance given by the named accused Ramesh Lohra took away her daughter to Delhi for job, but inspite of several request here daughter was not brought back from Delhi even her request was not brought back from Delhi even her request to make contact with her was also not full filled by the accused and in place of doing so use to give threatening for her life, hence the case has been lodged.

Under order dated 20.04.2017, records of Cr.M.P No. 268 of 2016 was called for.

Perused the record of Cr.M.P No. 268 of 2016, which reveals that petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and also to set aside the process of 82/83 Cr.P.C against the petitioner in which prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding has been rejected and the process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C has been set aside.

Let the Cr.M.P No. 268 of 2016 be sent to the concerned section. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case . It is also submitted that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., hence petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail and produced the case diary.

From perusal of the case diary para 204, it appears that police after investigation submitted final form against this petitioner and Arun Kumar and Ramesh Lohra under Section 363 / 370(4) and Section 23/26 Juvenile Justice Act. It further appears that victim girl has not been recovered till date. It is admitted fact that petitioner is proprietor of Nehru Group Services which is a placement agency and provide persons for demonstrate works. It further appears that statement of witnesses, Amrit Kerketta has been in para 120 and statement of witnesses Rajendra @ Sanu have been recorded in 128 of the case diary wherein they have stated that Ramesh Lohara has handed over the daughter of the informant to Arun Kumar for getting employment and the petitioner has given Rs. 5,000/- and in para 130 of the case diary, witnesses Dhaneshwar Lohra who is the elder brother Ramesh Lohra has stated that Ramesh Lohara used to bring minor girls from Jharkhand to Arun Kumar @ Arun Turi for providing job.

Taking all these facts and the serious allegations against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.