Delhi High Court
Mohd. Izhar Aleem & Anr vs The State on 12 August, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on : August 12, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 1411/2016
MOHD. IZHAR ALEEM & ANR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sunita Arora, Mr. Krishan
Kumar, Advocates
Mr. Jatin Sharma, Advocate for NGO
Justice Ventured International.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
JUDGMENT
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. By this petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the
Cr. P.C.), the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.
417/2016 under Section 3/14 Child Labour Act & 75, 79 of Juvenile
Justice Act and Section 16, 17, 18 of Bonded Labour System Act, at
Police Station Khajuri Khas, Delhi.
2. Upon an information about child labour in the area of Khajuri
Khas, a meeting chaired by SDM, HQ/NE Seelampur, Delhi, Officials
of Delhi Labour Department, Delhi Police and Members of NGO -
"Justice Ventures India Trust" was held on 18.05.2016 and
consequently decided to conduct raid on 19.05.2016 to rescue the
children. During the rescue operation 8 children / bonded labourers
were rescued from manufacturing units of ladies Bindi. SDM, HQ/NE,
Seelam Pur, vide his written order directed the police to registered an
FIR under the aforesaid sections. Medical examination of the rescued
children was conducted, statements under Section 161 of Cr. P.C.
recorded and as per order of CWC, all the children were handed over
to Officer Incharge of Sanskar Ashram, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
Statement of rescued children were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.
P.C. on 24.05.2016 before the court of learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
3. The petitioners apprehending their arrest in the aforesaid case
moved an anticipatory bail before the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi, which was dismissed vide order
dated 16.06.2016. Hence, the petitioners are before this court for
seeking anticipatory bail.
4. Ms. Sunita Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners contended
on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations leveled against the
petitioners are false and incorrect. It is contended that the children -
Mustaqeem and Musabbir Alam are about 18 years of age and
relatives of petitioner No.1 and their parents visited the petitioner No.1
and his family members, thereafter they returned back to their home
town. It is further contended that the parents of rescued children have
given their statements in the office of DCP, Delhi in respect of the
relationship and purpose of visit of their children to Delhi. It is further
contended that nothing has to be recovered from the petitioners
therefore no custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required.
Moreover, petitioners have clean antecedents and have never been
involved in any criminal activity/case and they are ready to join the
investigation as and when directed. Therefore, in the facts of the case,
it is prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions made on behalf of the
petitioners and contended that seven out of eight rescued children are
minors as per the ossification test, conducted by the Medical Board of
GTB Hospital on 15.06.2016 and the dental examination of the 8th
rescued child labour Izaz Alam is yet to be conducted. It is further
stated that there is strong possibility of the petitioners being involved
in heinous crime of human trafficking wherein the quantum of
sentence on conviction is between 10 years to life imprisonment. More
so, the petitioners have submitted fake documents before the CWC, as
indicated in order dated 19.07.2016 of CWC and the petitioners have
attempted to contact the children therefore, there is strong likelihood
of petitioners threatening the minor children and influence the
investigation. Therefore, the petitioners ought not be granted
anticipatory bail in this case.
6. I have heard counsel for the petitioners as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also gone through the
material on record. It is an admitted fact that the children were found
working during the raid conducted by the raiding team.
7. After hearing counsel for the parties, it is admitted fact that
there is recovery of 8 children from the factory of the petitioners who
were working in the manufacturing units of ladies Bindi, the
petitioners, and as per report of the ossification test dated 15.06.2016,
conducted by the Medical Board of GTB Hospital, seven children out
of eight were found to be minor, however, dental examination of the
8th rescued child - Izaz Alam is yet to be conducted. Though the
petitioners have contended that the children - Mustaqeem and
Musabbir Alam are about 18 years of age and parents of four children
have given their affidavits stating the age of their child and the
statements of parents of rescued children have given their statements
before DCP in respect of the relationship and purpose visit of their
children in Delhi, but all these facts need to be adjudicated upon by
the Trial Court during trial and at this stage this court is to take a
prima facie view as to whether the petitioners have been able to make
out a case for grant of anticipatory bail in this case.
8. This court observes that the trial is at the initial stage and the
charge sheet is yet to be filed and in the facts and circumstances the
possibility of the petitioners being involved in heinous crime of human
trafficking cannot be ruled out at this stage. Therefore, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to
concession for grant of anticipatory bail.
9. Resultantly, the facts emerging from the record culminate into
dismissal of the present bail application. Accordingly, the present bail
application filed by the petitioner is dismissed at this stage.
10. Before parting with the order, this court would like to place it
on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated
hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of
disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing
contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final
opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the
case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of
the trial.
11. With aforesaid direction, the present bail application stands
disposed of.
P.S.TEJI, J
AUGUST 12, 2016
pkb
