Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 752 (KAR)

Mohammed Harfath v. State of Karnataka

2014-08-26

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2014
Judgment : 1. These petitions are filed by the respective petitioners-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976, Section 370(A), 370(5), 374 and 344 of IPC, Sections 26 and 23 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and under Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, registered in respondent Police Station Crime Nos.156/2014, 157/2014 and 159/2014 respectively. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State in all the three petitions.. 3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petitions and the other materials on record. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, during the course of the arguments, submitted that on an earlier occasion, the present petitioners had approached this Court and since the investigation of the case was still going on, this Court rejected the bail application and reserved liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court immediately after completion of investigation of the case and filing of charge sheet. The learned Counsel submitted that now investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet has been filed. He further submitted that accused No.4 has been admitted to bail by the order of this Court dated 13.8.2014 in Crl.P. No.4702/2014. 5. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the petitioners are involved in the commission of the alleged offence and hence, they are not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have perused the order passed in Crl.P. No.4702/2014. Now investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Regarding merits of the case, this Court has discussed in detail in the bail order of accused No.4 while granting bail to him. The present petitioners in all the three petitions are also standing on the same footing with that of accused No.4. The children alleged to be employed in the factory in question were already taken out and sent to their respective places. 7. The petitioners in the bail petitions have contended that they are innocent and they have not at all committed the alleged offence. The children alleged to be employed in the factory in question were already taken out and sent to their respective places. 7. The petitioners in the bail petitions have contended that they are innocent and they have not at all committed the alleged offence. They have undertaken that they are ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioners can be admitted to bail. 8. Accordingly, all the three petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail of the offence punishable under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976, Section 370(A), 370(5), 374 and 344 of IPC, Sections 26 and 23 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and under Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, registered in respondent Police Station Crime Nos.156/2014, 157/2014 and 159/2014 respectively, subject to following conditions:- I. Each petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and shall offer a surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court. II. The petitioners shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. III. The petitioners shall attend the concerned Court regularly.