Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 740 (KAR)

Syed Sadik v. State

2019-03-27

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. Criminal Petition No.9410/2018 is filed by accused No.12 and Criminal Petition No.355/2019 is filed by accused Nos.7 and 8 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release them on bail in Crime No.178/2018 of Chikkajala Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506, 342, 420, 364A, 120B r/w. Section 149 of IPC. 2. I have heard Sri Viswanath Shetty, learned counsel and Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned HCGP Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., for the respondent-State. 3. A memo is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.355/2019 seeking permission to withdraw the petition filed by accused No.7-petitioner No.1. The said memo is taken on record. Criminal petition No.355/2019 filed by petitioner No.1 is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. The brief facts of the case are that accused persons brought some persons from various countries and also from outside the State by promising them of getting job in foreign countries and for the purpose of making money illegally. They kept the said persons in a house "Rakshakunja" at Chikkajala and tortured them to make a phone call to their parents and relatives to send money to their accounts. They were not providing proper food and they also used to assault the said persons who were in unlawful custody. On the basis of the information, complaint was prepared and a case has been registered. 5. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that already the charge sheet has been filed as against the accused-petitioner. In the charge sheet there is no allegation of human trafficking as against the petitioner. He further submitted that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He further submitted that nobody has filed the complaint. It is the police officer who has filed the complaint suo moto, that too after he going to the spot and finding the said persons and thereafter he took them to custody and registered the case. The said procedure itself is not in accordance with law. Without registering the case, proceeding to the spot and conducting the investigation is hit by Sections 154 and 156 of Cr.P.C. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of L. Shankaramurthy & others Vs. The said procedure itself is not in accordance with law. Without registering the case, proceeding to the spot and conducting the investigation is hit by Sections 154 and 156 of Cr.P.C. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of L. Shankaramurthy & others Vs. State by Lokayuktha Police, (2012) 5 KarLJ 545 . He further submitted that if information disclosing a cognizable offence comes to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer, the Police Officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form i.e., the Register and thereafter he has to proceed. If the said procedure is not followed, it hampers the entire investigation. In order to substantiate his said contention, he also relied upon the decision in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. & others, (2014) AIR SC 187. He further submitted that accused No.8-petitioner No.2 in Criminal petition No.355/2019 was working as a Cook and he came only on 20.10.2018. Earlier he was working in Delhi as a Cook. On promise to pay higher payment he came to Bengaluru and he is not involved in the said offence. He further submitted that there is no specific allegation about the ill-treatment and harassment caused by the accused to any of the persons who were in custody. He further submitted that all the victims were found on the spot. Who kept the victims in the house is not forthcoming. He further submitted that the demand of ransom and illegal detention is also not forthcoming from any of the documents. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition filed by accused No.8 and to release him on bail. 6. Sri Viswanath Shetty, learned counsel appearing for petitioner-accused No.12 by supporting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, has also prayed to allow the petition filed by accused No.12 by releasing him on bail. 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the activities of the petitioners along with other accused persons amount to human trafficking. They have adopted modus operandi targeting unemployed youths by securing them and under the guise of getting employment in foreign countries they used to extract ransom from the parents of the said hostages. 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the activities of the petitioners along with other accused persons amount to human trafficking. They have adopted modus operandi targeting unemployed youths by securing them and under the guise of getting employment in foreign countries they used to extract ransom from the parents of the said hostages. She further submitted that if any person protests, they used to take away the life of such person and one such incident has taken place and a case has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. She further submitted that accused Nos.9, 12, 13 have given their voluntary statements and from the spot, the passport and other incriminating materials have been seized from their possession. She further submitted that the said witnesses have specifically stated the overt acts of each of the accused about the ill-treatment, assault and torture by bat and other instruments. She further submitted that still the investigation is in progress and the Investigating Officer has to ascertain whether any other persons are involved in the said racket and at this juncture if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may abscond and may not be available for trial. She further submitted that the accused No.8 was not working as a Cook. From the place of seizure no utensils have been seized that itself clearly goes to show that he was not working as a Cook. She further submitted that accused No.12 is also involved in another case of a similar nature which has been registered in Patiala Court, wherein he has also given similar voluntary statement about his involvement. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petitions. 8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. It is the submission on behalf of the petitioners that police officer without there being any complaint only on the basis of the information went to the spot and after apprehending the accused persons he came back and thereafter registered the case. It is submitted that as per Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. if a police officer receives any information disclosing a cognizable offence, he has no other options except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form and register a case on the basis of such information. It is submitted that as per Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. if a police officer receives any information disclosing a cognizable offence, he has no other options except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form and register a case on the basis of such information. In order to substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the decision in the case of L. Shankaramurthy & others Vs. State by Lokayuktha Police (cited supra). I have carefully and cautiously gone through the said decision. But in the case on hand, the Investigating Officer was investigating the case in Crime 510/2017 of Ramanagara Police Station. He apprehended some of the accused and during the course of investigation, the accused persons volunteered about the human trafficking of some more persons and bringing the persons from foreign countries as well as from different States with an assurance of getting job to them in foreign countries. They used to wrongfully detain them and used to extract money by calling their relatives and friends over phone. In that context, as the investigation is in respect of the earlier case, he went to the place where the persons have been detained and thereafter he came back and got the case registered in Chikkajala Police Station only because of the reason that the alleged offence has taken place within the jurisdiction of the said Police Station. In that light, registration of the case subsequently after going to the place is not going to vitiate the entire proceedings. Registration of such information in the midst of process of investigation would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. During the course of investigation, if a police officer comes to know about an offence being committed in his presence, it would be imprudent to insist that he should return back to the Police Station to record the same in SHD or within the jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station and take the said police to the place of alleged crime and proceed in accordance with law does not stand to reason. A duty is cast upon the police officer to immediately act like apprehending the accused and to rescue the people who are in hostage and if such method is adopted, it would be an ideal to investigating procedure. A duty is cast upon the police officer to immediately act like apprehending the accused and to rescue the people who are in hostage and if such method is adopted, it would be an ideal to investigating procedure. In that light, if the entire case is looked into, there is no lapse on the part of the police authorities in this behalf. In the light of the discussion held by me above, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. government of U.P. & others (cited supra) and in the case of L. Shankaramurthy & others Vs. State by Lokayuktha Police, (cited supra) with due respect are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. Be that as it may, as could be seen from Section 41 of Cr.P.C., it empowers the police officer to arrest any person who commits a cognizable offence in his presence. In that light, the apprehension of the accused persons and bringing them by the police officer is not going to vitiate the entire proceedings, which is also a matter that has to be considered and appreciated at the time of trial. Hence, the contention taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not hold any water and as such the same is liable to be rejected. 11. What are the parameters which the Court has to keep in mind while considering the bail application have been elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph-112 of its decision in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , which read as under:- "112. 11. What are the parameters which the Court has to keep in mind while considering the bail application have been elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph-112 of its decision in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , which read as under:- "112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over-implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." 12. Keeping in view the above proposition of law, if we look into the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, including the charge sheet material, the persons who have been detained by the accused persons, have categorically stated that they have been brought about 15 to 20 days back with an assurance that they will be provided employment in foreign countries. They have been brought and confined in a house at Bengaluru and 5 to 6 persons were watching them. They also used to inform the family members over phone that they have reached foreign countries and they are in good jobs. The accused persons used to extract money from their relatives and friends and used to assault and ill-treat them even by showing lethal weapons. CWs.14 and 15 have also stated the overt acts of each of the accused persons. 13. It is further submission on behalf of the petitioners that accused No.8 is also one of the persons who has been engaged as a Cook and only with an assurance that he would get a better job, he came to Bengaluru and therefore there is no direct role played by him. Though it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that accused No.8-petitioner No.2 in Criminal Petition No.355/2019 is working as a Cook, as per the averments made in the petition, he is not a Cook, but he is working as a Painter. As could be seen from the charge sheet material, it indicates that he also used to assault and threaten the said detenues and even there is no material found during the course of drawing a mahazar about using of utensils for cooking. If really he was working as a Cook he could have also disclosed the said fact to the Investigating Officer. But he has not disclosed the same. During the course of arguments, the learned HCGP submitted that in respect of accused No.12, a case has been registered in Patiala Court under similar facts. If really the said accused was not involved in the crime, then under such circumstances, there was no question of registering a case as against him in the said Court. It is further submitted that the said case is also pertaining to trafficking of human beings, that itself indicates that he is also a member of the syndicate in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the said case is also pertaining to trafficking of human beings, that itself indicates that he is also a member of the syndicate in the alleged crime. Looking from any angle, there is a material to connect the accused persons to the alleged crime. 14. While considering the bail application, the Court should not only look into the fact as to whether the accused persons will be available for the purpose of trial and there is no likelihood of they being absconded, but also to look into the fact that accused persons will not involve in similar type of criminal offences and the social effect including the far fetching effect on the society. Trafficking of human beings itself considered to be a very serious offence. Nowadays it has become a profession by the accused persons and it is a big racket at international level. If such activities are not snubbed with iron hands, then the said activities will be increased and it will become a menus to the society. In that light, though the said offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, as it has social impact on the society, I feel that this is not a fit a case to grant the bail to the petitioners. While considering the bail application, gravity, social consequences, effect on the society and people at large are to be kept in view. If the petitioners are released on bail there is every likelihood of they being absconded, may not be available for trial and they may again indulge in similar type of criminal activities. In that light, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, petitions are dismissed.