IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4286/2018 BETWEEN :
Sri C.Kishan Lal S/o late H. Chand Mall Aged about 70 years Residing at No.24, Car Street, Ulsoor Bengaluru-560 008 … Petitioner (By Sri M.T.Nanaiah, Senior Counsel for Sri H.R.Ananthakrishnamurthy, Advocate) AND :
The State of Karnataka by Mahadevapura Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
… Respondent (By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.591/2017 of Mahadevapura Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 16, 17, 18 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, Section 3(1)(h) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Sections 342, 370, 374 of Indian Penal Code and Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.591/2017 of Mahadevapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 16, 17, 18 of Bonded Labour System(Abolition) Act; Section 3(1)(h) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act and Sections 342, 370, 374 of IPC.
2. I have heard Sri M.T.Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that provisions of the aforesaid Sections are not applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no prima facie material produced as against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed a writ petition in WP.No.80/2018 before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the initiation of the proceedings as against the petitioner and this Court by the order dated 9.1.2019 has granted interim order of stay of further proceedings. In view of the changed circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner has kept eleven bonded labours who used to be harassed and they used to be paid meager amount. She further submitted that the said bonded labours were not provided with the basic facilities as contemplated under law. She further submitted that this Court in Criminal Petition No.539/2018, disposed of on 22.2.2018 has already come to the conclusion that there is prima facie material as against the petitioner herein and thereby rejected the said petition. No new grounds have been made out so as to revive the said order. In view of the stay granted by this Court there is no apprehension of the petitioner being arrested by the respondent-police. In that light, the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Though notice is served on the victims they have remained absent.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. As could be seen from the records, this Court in Criminal Petition No.539/2018 disposed of on 22.2.2018 has come to the conclusion that there is prima facie material as against the petitioner. When once already this Court has taken a view that there is prima facie case and the said petition has been dismissed by this Court, it cannot revive it’s own order without there being any changed circumstances or facts. But it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in WP.No.80/2018, the stay has been granted by this Court and as such there is changed circumstance. It is the contention of the learned HCGP that in view of the stay granted by this Court by the order dated 9.1.2019, there is no question of apprehension of the accused being apprehended and hence the petition is not maintainable. There appears to be some force in the submissions of the learned HCGP. By the order dated 9.1.2019, interim stay has been granted by this Court staying all further proceedings that itself indicates that the entire further investigation proceedings have been stayed and when the matter has been stayed there is no question of the petitioner being arrested.
In that light, petition is not maintainable. However, in the event if the writ petition goes against the petitioner, liberty is reserved to him to revive his right to file a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-