Full Text
Translation output
BAIL APPLN. 134/2015 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: January 21, 2015
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: January 21, 2015
BAIL APPLN. 134/2015
RAJEEV @ RAJU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Salman Khan, Advocate
RAJEEV @ RAJU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Salman Khan, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 989/2015 (Exemption)
Allowed to subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.A. 989/2015 (Exemption)
Allowed to subject to all just exceptions.
BAIL APPLN. 134/2015
In this application, petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR
No.913/2014 for the offences under Section 370 of IPC and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 on the ground that petitioner is in custody since 29th August, 2014 and the investigation of this case is complete.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the allegations of petitioner indulging in human trafficking is negated by the statements of six minor children, who had come from native place of petitioner to Delhi for sight-seeing and so, Section 370 of IPC is not attracted.
2015:DHC:629
In this application, petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR
No.913/2014 for the offences under Section 370 of IPC and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 on the ground that petitioner is in custody since 29th August, 2014 and the investigation of this case is complete.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the allegations of petitioner indulging in human trafficking is negated by the statements of six minor children, who had come from native place of petitioner to Delhi for sight-seeing and so, Section 370 of IPC is not attracted.
2015:DHC:629
BAIL APPLN. 134/2015 Page 2
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State strongly opposes this bail application by submitting that six minor children were recovered by NGO-Child Line Paryas from the house of petitioner and the consent of the recovered minor children is immaterial in view of the
Explanation-II to Section 370 of IPC. It is pointed out that apart from the children, there is evidence of the Chairman, Child Welfare Committee from which the offence under Section 370 of IPC is clearly made out and this offence is a serious one as it entails punishment of not less than ten years. Lastly, it is pointed out that if petitioner is granted bail, then he will tamper with the evidence.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR of this case and the material on record, I find that the offence purportedly committed by petitioner is indeed serious one. As per Explanation-II to Section 370 of
IPC, consent of the recovered minor children is immaterial. The apprehension expressed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State of petitioner tampering with the evidence is not unfounded. The deposition of public material witness is yet to be recorded.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to petitioner at this stage.
This application is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to seek bail from trial court after the evidence of the material witness is recorded.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 21, 2015 s 2015:DHC:629
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State strongly opposes this bail application by submitting that six minor children were recovered by NGO-Child Line Paryas from the house of petitioner and the consent of the recovered minor children is immaterial in view of the
Explanation-II to Section 370 of IPC. It is pointed out that apart from the children, there is evidence of the Chairman, Child Welfare Committee from which the offence under Section 370 of IPC is clearly made out and this offence is a serious one as it entails punishment of not less than ten years. Lastly, it is pointed out that if petitioner is granted bail, then he will tamper with the evidence.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR of this case and the material on record, I find that the offence purportedly committed by petitioner is indeed serious one. As per Explanation-II to Section 370 of
IPC, consent of the recovered minor children is immaterial. The apprehension expressed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State of petitioner tampering with the evidence is not unfounded. The deposition of public material witness is yet to be recorded.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to petitioner at this stage.
This application is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to seek bail from trial court after the evidence of the material witness is recorded.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 21, 2015 s 2015:DHC:629