IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6720/2017 BETWEEN:
Mr. RANJITH S/O Mr. CHITRU, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O THUBINAKERE VILLAGE CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160 PERMANENT R/O BELPAD VILLAGE, BOLANGIR TALUK AND DISTRICT, STATE OF ORISSA-767 026.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AKKUR POLICE CHANNAPATNA TALUK THROUGH THE S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.) THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.174/2017 OF AKKUR POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 342, 370 AND 374 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 16, 17 AND 18 OF BONDED LABOUR ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1976 and under Section 3(1) (h) of the SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Amendment Act, 2015 and also under Sections 370, 374 and 342 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.174/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that the present petitioner-accused No.2 is also one of the employee like other victims in the case. It is also his submission that looking to the prosecution materials, there is no prima facie case made out as against the present petitioner to show his involvement in committing the offences. Further he submitted that investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. Hence, he made the submission that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner-accused No.2 may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that prosecution material reveal that it is the present petitioner who was trafficking the victims to the said Brick Kiln. He also made the submission that as the payment was not made properly, they left the said Brick Kiln and they joined with another Brick Kiln. It is also his submission that because of the said reason, along with the employer of the said Brick Kiln, the present petitioner also assaulted the victims threatening them to come and work in the Brick Kiln of the employer.
Hence, he submitted that in the statements recorded by the Investigation Officer, the name of the present petitioner is also mentioned that it is the present petitioner who is responsible for bringing them to the said place. Hence, he submitted that there is prima facie material as against the petitioner. The petitioner was absconded after registration of the FIR and police have arrested him later. As he is from a different state, if released on bail, he may not be available for prosecution of the case and even he may involve in committing similar offence in future also. In this connection, learned High Court Government Pleader also relied on the order of this Court dated 15.06.2017 in Crl.P.No.101109/2017. Hence, he submitted to reject the petition.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, the FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case.
6. Looking to the prosecution materials, the statement of witnesses who are the victims, they have clearly stated about the involvement of the present petitioner in trafficking the victims. There is also the statement that they were assaulted even by the present petitioner and also he hails from the another State and also the fact that immediately after registration of the case, he was not available and was absconding for some period and later he was arrested. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record and nature of the allegations made as against the present petitioner, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of petitioner No.2.
Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.