Rohit Paswan v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No.233/202Iregistered under Section 370 IPC; Sections 75/79 ofthe JJ Act; Sections3/14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Sections 16/17/18 ofthe Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 at Police Station Jahangir Puri,Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case, the applicant is injudicial custody since 10.04.2021 and the charge sheet having been filed, he is no longer required for any investigation. He further submits that the applicant has a penuanent residence and shall remain available for trial. It is also submitted that except for the offence punishable under Section 370 IPC, the maximum sentence for all the other offences is[7] years. It is 2022:DHC:5958 lastly submitted that almost all the children stated to be rescued from the house ofthe applicant were above the age of 14 years and the work involved production of'Nagina Bangles',which is not a hazardous product.

3. Learned APP for the State,on the other hand,has opposed the present bail application. He has submitted that the applicant was involved in the work ofmanufacturing of'glass bangles' and 8 children between the age of 11 and 16years were rescued and recovered from his house, who were also - ^ indulged in the making of 'glass bangles'. Pie further submitted that statements of all the children under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have been recorded, wherein it has been stated that the applicant used to scold and torture them for more work. It is also submitted that the children have mentioned in their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that they were made to work from 6 a.m. to 10-12 p.m. and the applicant used to pay Rs.4000- 5000/- per month. Learned APP further contended that as per the statements of the children rescued, it was the present applicant who brought them from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar for manufacturing of 'bangles'. lie also submitted that the applicant has no permanent address and five co-accused persons have been declared as proclaimed offender/absconder. Lastly, it is submitted that Section 370(5) IPC is involved in the present case and the minimum sentence for the same is RI for not less than 14 years.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State as well as perused the material placed on record.

5. The present case involves trafficking of minor children, an offence that is punishable under Section 370 IPC. As per the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of all the 8 minor children rescued from the premises of the applicant have been recorded and it has been found that the present applicant employed them for making of 'glass bangles'. In their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., all the 8 minor children rescued from the house of the applicant have supported the prosecution case.

6. On a specific query, learned APP for the State, on instructions from the Investigation Officer, who has also joined the V.C. proceedings, submitted that it has come on record that it was the present applicant who employed the 8 minor children rescued from his house. Further, it has been informed that charges in the present case have been framed and the 8 minor children rescued are yetto be examined.

7. Keeping in view the gravity ofthe offences charged and the stage of the trial, this Court is not inclined to admit the applicant on bail. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.

8. Nothing stated hereinabove shall amount to an expression on the merits of the case. The observations are only a primafacie view and have been made to dispose ofthe bail application.