Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1546 (RAJ)

Natthuram v. State of Rajasthan

2017-07-12

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2017
ORDER : Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. 1973. 2. F.I.R. No. 422/2017 was registered at Police Station Kotputli, District Jaipur for offence under Sections 343, 374 I.P.C. and Section 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. 3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016 has come into force on 1.9.2016 thus the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which came into force on 15.1.2016 has no applicability to an adolescent as the amended Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016 permits engaging of an adolescent and the only rider is that he should not be engaged in any hazardous occupation or process. 4. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's establishment is not dealing with any hazardous process. Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has no applicability as a subsequent legislation has been enacted by the Parliament which permits engaging of an adolescent. 5. It is also contended that petitioner is aged about 66 years and is a heart patient. No purpose would be served in arresting the petitioner. 6. My attention has been drawn towards the case of A. Nizamudhin vs. State of Kerala, Crime No. 1559/2016 in Bail Application No. 5715/2016 decided on 12th August, 2016 by the Kerala High Court. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. His contention is that a juvenile is defined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and as per sub-section (12) of section 2 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 a "child" means a person who has not completed eighteen years of age. It is also contended that as per Section 79 of the Act there is a bar on engaging a child. 8. I have considered the contentions. 9. It is also contended that as per Section 79 of the Act there is a bar on engaging a child. 8. I have considered the contentions. 9. Section 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 begins with a non-obstinate clause, the same is reproduced hereunder: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, whoever ostensibly engages a child and keeps him in bondage for the purpose of employment or withholds his earnings or uses such earning for his own purposes shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine of one lakh rupees. Explanation - For the purposes of this section, the term "employment" shall also include selling goods and services and entertainment in public places for economic gain." 10. For an offence to fall within the purview of Section 79 there should be ostensible engagement of a child and keeping of the child in bondage for the purpose of employment or withholding his earnings or using his earnings. 11. The petitioner's establishment is not dealing with any hazardous process and has employed an adolescent, they have not ostensibly engaged the adolescent and kept in bondage for the purpose of employment or to withhold his earnings or using his earning. Hence, I deem it proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 12. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. The SHO/IO/Arresting Authority, Police Station Kotputli, District Jaipur in F.I.R. No. 422/2017, is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer. (iii) That the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.