Nagaraj and Others vs State

L. Narayana Swamy, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent - State.

Petitioners are accused in Cr. No. 62/2015 on the file of the respondent - Rajanukunte Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 323, 341, 342, 357, 504, 506 of IPC r/w Sec. 16, 17 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. Apprehending their arrest at the hands of the respondent Police they filed anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release.

It is the case of the prosecution that one Madan Mohan Paik, working as District Labour Officer, Labour Office, Bolmgir District, Orissa State, appeared before the respondent - Police to lodge a complaint stating that his higher Officers, ie., The Deputy Commissioner of Bolmger District has served a memo vide letter No. 1718 dt. 21.04.2015 and on the basis of the said Memo he contacted Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru District on 28.04.2015. Thereafter he went to Asst. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District and by taking assistance of NGO Officers of Kalyananagara he conducted raid on MTB Bricks Factory, Mavallipura, Bengaluru North Taluk on 29.04.2015 and he could not find the persons in his list. Again on 30.04.2015 he received information that in Yelahanka Railway Station there are some persons from Orissa . He went there identified those persons as belongs to Orissa State. On enquiry those persons informed the Complainant that they came to Bengaluru in December 2014 and working in the factory belonging to the accused. They have also disclosed that the accused have tortured them without giving any facility and used to abuse them. Thereafter, the Complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent - Police. They registered a case and took up investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of the court certain records and contends that a false complaint came to be lodged against them and there was sufficient material with the prosecution against these petitioners. He contends that there is handy work of some persons, who are interested in the alleged incident and inimical towards them. He further contended that the complaint came to be lodged against these petitioners only on the ear say information and that too, the said persons from Orissa were found not at the work spot of the petitioners but in Yelahanka Railway Station. He contends that entire case depends on circumstantial evidence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners undertake to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this court while granting the bail.

The learned Government Pleader vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner - accused on the ground that it is the petitioner - accused who involved in the crime and there is a statement of the persons who were found in the Railway Station that they are coming from the factory of these accused. He contends that the prosecution has already collected materials to show that these petitioners - accused have tortured the persons like animals and without providing basic amenities and hence unable to bear the torture they escaped from the factory premises of the accused and found in Railway Station to the Complainant. Further, he strenuously contended that the petitioners - accused have absconded since day one and they have not appeared before the investigating agency and assisted the investigation. Therefore, bail may not be granted and requests the court to dismiss the bail petition.

The learned counsel Mrs. Acca Varghees, appearing on behalf of the Complainant and assisting the learned Government Pleader in this case, in support of the contentions raised by the respondent - Police, contends that there is substantial prima facie evidence against the petitioners. She contends that the Complainant had received credible information during February 2015 that seven families have been trafficking to Bengaluru to work in different brick kilns. Out of seven families four families are with the accused. She contends that when these petitioners - accused came to know of the fact that the Complainant is coming from Orissa in search of them and at any moment he is going to raid their kiln, the petitioners physically assaulted these four families with sticks. They were very fearful and escaped to a nearby forest, where they hide for two days. Further, it is contended that when they were in Railway Station they were identified by the Complainant. It is stated that the Complainant also found injuries on the persons of the four families. They were brought to respondent - Police and their statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of BALU @ BALASUBRAMANYAM S/O KRISHNAMURTHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2014 INDLAW KAR 735 and MUNIRAJU S/O NARASIMHAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2014 INDLAW KAR 151. She contended that in both these cases this Court has taken into consideration the fact that there is violence on the children, ill-treatment given, not giving sufficient salary, wrongful confinement in the factory premises, female children were used to sexual activities and such crimes on the women and children. She contended that thus this Court found that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the accused therein and rejected the bail petitions. Thus, the learned counsel strenuously argued that the petitioners - accused are not at all entitled to be enlarged on bail and prays to reject their bail applications.

Perused the records.

On perusal of the material on record I find there is some force in the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioners - accused that there are no direct evidence against these petitioners and mentioning of the names of these petitioners - accused. The petitioners -accused are permanent residents of their respective places having deep roots in the community. Further, they are all ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Thus, the apprehension of the learned Government Pleader could be met with by imposing suitable conditions.

Further, it is pertinent to note that there is some force in the arguments of the learned counsel for Complainant, who assisted the learned Government Pleader in this case. She argued that there is severe torture to the victims, they have been treated like animals, not provided basic amenities and even they have been beaten by the petitioners - accused. They have also been wrongfully confined in the brick kiln. I find that this is not a stage to examine all those contentions. The material on record discloses that the victims were found at Yelahanka Railway Station and not in the factory premises of the petitioners. Therefore, these facts have to be gone in detail at the time of trial. Secondly, the learned counsel for Complainant relied on two decisions of this Court to contend that this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners.

It is too early to come to a conclusion that based on the materials available and statement recorded and other relevant materials, that these petitioners -accused are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. The circumstances enumerated in those two decisions and the facts involved in the instant case are entirely different. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

1) Bail application is allowed. Petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Cr. No. 62/2015 of the respondent Police on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the I.O.

2) They shall surrender before the I.O. on or before 30.07.2015.

3) They shall co-operate with the further investigation and shall attend police station whenever their presence is required by the I.O. without fail.

4) They shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses and shall not try to lure them in many manner.

5) They shall not involve themselves in any such kind of activities.

6) They shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional police once in a month on every second Sunday between 9 AM to 5 PM for a period of one year from the date of their surrender before Investigation Officer.

7) It is made clear that if they do not comply with any one of the conditions imposed on them, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail."