JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 06.10.2023 passed in A.B.P. No.603 of 2023 by learned Sessions Judge, Chatra whereby and whereunder the prayer of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.180 of 2019 registered under Sections 368, 369 and 370 of the Indian Penal Code, has been rejected. Facts of the case 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the son of the complainant, Rajiv Pratap and daughter-in-law Rinki Kumari, bought land in Village Serendih and built house in which they were running an English Medium School. The son and daughter-in-law of the complainant used to live there with their three children. Due to dispute between the complainant’s son and daughter-in-law, they both committed suicide on 11.08.2017 leaving behind two daughters Ritika Kumari aged 8 years, daughter Kavi alias Butter aged about 3 years and a son Shahil Pratap aged about 17 months. The complainant, after giving information to Ichagarh Police Station and getting the postmortem done, took the dead body of his son and daughter-in-law to his village Serendih and from there brought the dead bodies of his son and daughter-in-law to his home along with his grandchildren. 3. It has been alleged that the appellant Dhaneshwar Rana came to the house of the complainant and forcibly abducted complainant’s granddaughters and grandson from the house and took them away on a motorcycle along with an unknown person. When the plaintiff started searching for his grandchildren, the witnesses and some people told the plaintiff that the appellant Dhaneshwar Rana has kidnapped his grandson and granddaughters. 4. On 24.08.2017, the plaintiff went to the house of appellant Dhaneshwar Rana, but the grandchildren were not found at appellant’s house. When the complainant asked the plaintiff regarding his grandchildren, the appellant said that your grandchildren are at his in-laws house and he will bring her back in a day. Thereafter, the appellant did not hand over the grandchildren to the complainant by making one excuse or the other. The plaintiff was convinced that the appellant has sold his three grandchildren to some place and is avoiding the issue. 5. It has been alleged that the appellant has threatened the plaintiff to keep quiet and pay him Rs.10,00,000/- then only he will return his grandchildren. The plaintiff was convinced that the appellant has sold his three grandchildren to some place and is avoiding the issue. 5. It has been alleged that the appellant has threatened the plaintiff to keep quiet and pay him Rs.10,00,000/- then only he will return his grandchildren. The complainant gave written information in Sadar Police station on 24.12.2017, but when no legal action has been taken by the police against the appellant, a complaint case has been filed. 6. Apprehending his arrest the appellant had preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Court but the same was rejected, hence the present Appeal. Submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant 7. Mr. Shadab Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint case. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant is the grandfather of the children namely, Sahil Pratap, Ritika Kumar and Kavi @ Butter and was not ready to keep the three children with him. Therefore, the maternal uncle of the children took the responsibility of the children and with the help of one social worker he managed to keep the children at his place until he finds some better place or person who could adopt them. 9. It has further been contended that in presence of various persons, in the meeting of Panchayat, the appellant adopted the child, namely, Sahil Pratap and a formal paper of adoption was prepared in which the people present in the meeting put their signatures including the complainant. 10. It has been submitted that the complainant himself had handed over his grandson to the appellant by formal process of adoption at his village in front of various witnesses in a Panchayat meeting held on 11.08.2017 which was confirmed in the another meeting held on 21.09.2017. 11. It has been submitted that in the same manner the other two children were also given to another person who was willing to adopt. 12. It has been contended that since the complainant is an old person, he could not take the responsibility of the children and, therefore, he agreed to give them in adoption to the respective persons. 11. It has been submitted that in the same manner the other two children were also given to another person who was willing to adopt. 12. It has been contended that since the complainant is an old person, he could not take the responsibility of the children and, therefore, he agreed to give them in adoption to the respective persons. Moreover, the maternal uncle of the children has filed affidavit that the appellant has adopted only one child, namely, Sahil Pratap and the other two children were adopted by two different persons for their better future prospects. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the incident is of the year 2017 and the complaint has been filed after a lapse of two years and the delay in lodging the complaint itself is a proof that the complainant wants to fulfil his ulterior motives by filing criminal case against the appellant. 14. It has been submitted that the fact of the matter is that the complainant wanted to sell the property of his son i.e the school situated in village Serendih which is earned property of son of the complainant, namely, Rajiv Pratap, of which his grandson is also a shareholder and for this reason the complainant has filed this complaint case to bring back his grandson whom he already gave to the appellant long ago. 15. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that although the complaint case has been instituted under Sections 368, 369 and 370 of the Indian Penal Code but there is nothing to attract the ingredients of the penal offence under Sections 368 or 369 or 370 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned court while considering the prayer for anticipatory bail, ought to have taken into consideration all these facts but has not done so, therefore, the impugned order needs to be interfered with. Submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State 17. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer. 18. He has submitted that the appellant is named in the complaint petition and there is direct allegation against him that he took away the grandchildren of the complainant. 19. Submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State 17. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer. 18. He has submitted that the appellant is named in the complaint petition and there is direct allegation against him that he took away the grandchildren of the complainant. 19. It has further been submitted that though the appellant has taken the ground that he has adopted the grandson of the complainant but adoption was made without following the due legal process. 20. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel prayed that the impugned order may not be interfered with and the prayer of the appellant may be rejected. Analysis 21. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the material available on record as also the impugned order. 22. From the perusal of record, it is evident that admittedly the complaint was filed by the complainant after two years of alleged occurrence. 23. The learned counsel for appellant has submitted that on 11.08.2017 one Panchayat meeting was organized wherein with the consent of the complainant, it has been decided that since the accused/appellant wants to adopt the child namely Sahil Pratap, a formal document of adoption was got prepared and people in the panchayat meeting including the complainant put their signatures on it. In order to fortify his contention he has referred the document of said panchayat meeting which has been appended to the instant petition as Annexure -2. 24. In the aforesaid backdrop of the facts this Court deems fit and proper to discuss that whether prima facie the ingredients of the alleged offences are available or not. 25. Since the offences are alleged against the appellant under Sections 368, 369 and 370 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore for ready reference same are being quoted as under: 368. Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person.—Whoever, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully conceals or confines such person, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge, or for the same purpose as that with or for which he conceals or detains such person in confinement. 369. 369. Kidnapping or abducting child under ten years with intent to steal from its person.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any child under the age of ten years with the intention of taking dishonestly any movable property from the person of such child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. [370. Trafficking of person.— (1) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by— First. —using threats, or Secondly. —using force, or any other form of coercion, or Thirdly. —by abduction, or Fourthly. —by practising fraud, or deception, or Fifthly. —by abuse of power, or Sixthly. —by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking. Explanation 1. —The expression “exploitation” shall include any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs. Explanation 2. —The consent of the victim is immaterial in determination of the offence of trafficking. (2) Whoever commits the offence of trafficking shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one person, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (4) Where the offence involves the trafficking of a minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (5) Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than fourteen years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (5) Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than fourteen years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (6) If a person is convicted of the offence of trafficking of minor on more than one occasion, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine. (7) When a public servant or a police officer is involved in the trafficking of any person then, such public servant or police officer shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine. Conclusion 26. Applying the essential ingredients of the aforesaid Sections into factual aspects of the present case, it is evident that prima facie none of the ingredients of the alleged offences are available reason being that in panchayat meeting, the own maternal uncle of children with the consent of the complainant had handed over the grandson of the complainant to the accused/appellant and further the complainant has put his signature on the document which was prepared in the said meeting. 27. Further the learned Sessions Court while rejecting the bail petition has opined that the petitioner (appellant herein) took the grandson and granddaughters of complainant, but adopted his grandson of complainant without following the legal process and on his request, petitioner did not hand over his grandson and granddaughters to him. 28. Thus, from perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the appellant has taken the grandson and granddaughters of informant and adopted the grandson of complainant without following the legal process of adoption and in the aforesaid purview also it prima facie appears that the elements of alleged offences are not available against the appellant. 29. 28. Thus, from perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the appellant has taken the grandson and granddaughters of informant and adopted the grandson of complainant without following the legal process of adoption and in the aforesaid purview also it prima facie appears that the elements of alleged offences are not available against the appellant. 29. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that the complainant himself has signed on the document relating to adoption of his grandson which was prepared in the meeting of the Panchayat as also the fact that the maternal uncle of the grandchildren of the complainant has filed affidavit that the appellant only took the grandson of the complainant as adopted child, and rest of the children were given to another person for their better future prospects and that the appellant is completely innocent, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs interference. 30. Accordingly, the order dated 06.10.2023 passed in A.B.P. No.603 of 2023 by learned Sessions Judge, Chatra, is hereby quashed and set aside. 31. In consequence thereof, the appeal is hereby allowed. 32. Accordingly, the appellant, above named, is directed to surrender himself before the learned court below within a period of four weeks and on such surrender, he will be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chatra in connection with C.P. Case No.180 of 2019. 33. The appeal stands disposed of.