Kamal Hassan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 29043 of 2016 Arising out of P. S. Case No. - 6 Year - 2016 Thana - KATIHAR GRP CASE District - KATIHAR ====================================================== Kamal Hassan, S/o Nazrul Haque, Resident of Village - Bairbanna, P.S. - Dighal Bank, District - Kishanganj .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Madan Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 07-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kishanganj Rail P.S. Case No. 06 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 374 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Case diary, in the present case, was called for which has since been received.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there is an allegation of trafficking of children for the purpose of house labour, but the parents of some of the children have come forward to state that they permitted their children to go to Delhi. It is further submitted that neither petitioner was arrested from the place of occurrence nor any further material has come against him.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29043 of 2016 (3) dt.07-09-2016 2/2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, pointing out various paragraphs of the case diary including paragraph 20 and 21, has submitted that the Labour Inspector has caught two of the accused persons from the railway station at Kishanganj and about twelve children have been found in their custody who were being taken away to Delhi or other States for being forced labour. He further submits that even the children have stated that it was the present petitioner who gave commission to their father to take them away.

In view of the nature of allegation made and the materials which have surfaced in the case diary, I am not inclined to grant prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, if the petitioner surrenders within a period of four weeks in the learned Court below, his prayer for regular bail shall be considered without being prejudiced by this order. Kundan (Anjana Mishra, J.) U