Bombay High Court
Mahesh S/O Kacharu Gaikwd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 November, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
6227.16crapln
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6227 OF 2016
Mahesh s/o Kacharu Gaikwad,
Age: 32 years, Occ: Agri.,
R/o. Pangari Road,Shahunagar,
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Shivaji Nagar Police Station,
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. ..RESPONDENT
Mr A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for applicant;
Mr R.V. Dasalkar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for
respondent
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR,J.
DATE : 25th NOVEMBER, 2016
ORAL ORDER :
Heard.
2. The applicant seeks his release on bail
pursuant to his arrest on 30 th June, 2016 in
connection with Crime No. 494 of 2016 registered at
Shivaji Nagar Police Station, District Beed for
offences punishable under Sections 326,
326-A, 374, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, under
6227.16crapln
Section 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and under Section
3 and 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and
Regulation) Act, 1986.
3. As per F.I.R. dated 30th June, 2016, the
applicant runs Ashirwad Bhojanalaya in which he had
employed one Ganesh aged about 12 years against his
wishes. On making necessary enquiry, it was found
that Ganesh had been working in the said
Bhojanalaya. He was not being paid despite doing
work. It was further stated that when he had
demanded his money, he had been assaulted and given
burns. On that basis, offence came to be registered
under the aforesaid Sections.
4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for
the applicant that as per injury certificate dated
30th June, 2016, four simple injuries are shown to
have been sustained by the said child Ganesh. The
opinion of Radiologist indicates the age of the
child between 11 years to 16 years. It is pointed
6227.16crapln
out that after 21 days another injury certificate
was obtained, which indicated scars due to burns.
On that basis, it was submitted that when the child
was firstly examined on 30th June, 2016, no such
scars were noticed. It is, therefore, submitted
that there was no question of any grievous hurt
being caused to the said child to attract the
provisions of Section 326(A) of the Indian Penal
Code. It is then submitted that other offences
attract maximum punishment of imprisonment of only
one year and hence, considering the fact that the
charge sheet has been duly filed, the applicant
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
5. The application is opposed by learned
Additional Public Prosecutor by relying upon the
police papers. He submits that the subsequent
medical certificate dated 21st July, 2016 indicates
scar injuries sustained by Ganesh. As per seizure
effected, it is clear that the applicant had
inflicted burn injuries on the said child. It is,
therefore, submitted that if the application is
6227.16crapln
allowed, there is likelihood of applicant of
coercing the witnesses.
6. Perused the F.I.R. as well as documents
filed along with the charge sheet. First injury
certificate dated 30th June, 2016 indicates four
simple injuries on the body of Ganesh. His
subsequent medical certificate dated 21 st July,
2016 indicates certain month old scars but nature
of injuries is stated to be simple. Considering
the fact that both the injury certificates indicate
simple injuries, prima facie it can be said that
there are no grievous injuries suffered by the
child. Provisions of Section 326 or Section 326-A
of the Penal Code contemplate causing grievous
hurt. Insofar as the age of said child is
concerned, same is stated to be between 11 years to
16 years as per opinion of the Radiologist. The
expression 'child' as defined in Section 2(ii) of
the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act,
1986 means a person who has not completed his
fourteenth year of age. The penalty for employing a
6227.16crapln
child is imprisonment for maximum period of one
year with fine. Insofar as offence punishable
under Section 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is
concerned, it is to be noted that the said Act
stands repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which Act came
into force on 12th January, 2016. The offence
alleged is stated to be committed in May-June,
2016.
7. In that view of the matter, it is clear
that the applicant has made out a strong case for
his release on bail. Moreover, the chargesheet has
been after completing the investigation.
8. In view of aforesaid, the following
order :-
: O R D E R :
(i) The applicant is directed to be released
6227.16crapln
on bail, in connection with Crime No. 494 of 2016
registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station,Dist.
Beed for offences punishable under Sections
326,326-A,374,323 of the Indian Penal Code, under
Section 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and under Section
3 and 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and
Regulation) Act, 1986, on furnishing P.R. bond of
Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall attend the Court of
concerned learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Beed on 10th of every month and as per directions
of the concerned Magistrate.
(iii) The applicant shall not take any steps to
coerce the prosecution witnesses.
9. It is clarified that the observations made
in this order are only for the purpose of
considering the present bail application.
6227.16crapln
10. Criminal Application is allowed in above
terms and is disposed of.
(A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
Tupe
