MUKESH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, at the outset, has submitted that due to inadvertence and typographical error, wrong statement has been made at paragraph ' 6 of the counter affidavit which he wants to withdraw.

(2.) Considering the same, the said statement is allowed to be withdrawn and as such, the same is deleted.

(3.) The instant appeal has been filed under Sec. 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dtd. 7/10/2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in Bail Petition No.637 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with S.T. (Spt.) Case No.34 of 2024 arising out of A.H.T.U. Gumla P.S. Case No.36 of 2014, registered for the offence under Ss. 366(A), 367, 370, 371 and 372 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sec. 26 of the J.J. Act, under Sec. 16 of the Bonded Labour Act and Sec. 5 of the Immoral Traffic Act, has been rejected.