Smt. Geeta Devi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1330 of 2020 Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Devi Lal Aged About 30 Years R/o Doomri, District - Gumla, Jharkhand, Present Address-Ranchi Deepadoli, P.S. - Jagarnathpur, Tehsil-Pundag, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand (Note-The Age, Husband Name Of The Applicant And Tahsil Not Correctly Mentioned In Impugned Order Dated 06/02/2020), District : Ranchi, Jharkhand ---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Samripath, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Shri A.K. Yadav, Advocate For State :

Shri Aman Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 19/02/2021 Heard.

1. The applicant has filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as she is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. 49/2019, registered at Police Station -Samripath, DistrictBalrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 370, 342 IPC R/w Section 79-2/2015 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant and co-accused are part of a racket which is involved in human trafficking involving minor girls who are taken to metro stations for subjecting poor tribals to exploitative conditions of work and begar.

-23. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that as far as present applicant is concerned, she herself is a labour and when she was going to Delhi, she was entrusted with the custody of child Usha along with many other girls who were taken to Delhi and there, they have undertaken certain jobs. He submits that there are no allegation of any sexual exploitation of the girl child and the dispute is mainly because of the payment of wages due to which, a false case has been registered against the present applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the application by submitting that during investigation so far conducted, it has come out that the applicant is a member of a racket which is involved in human trafficking particularly of girls in the area and they are taken to big stations for being subjected to domestic and other work on exploitative conditions.

5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, taking into consideration the nature of allegation against the applicant and that the victim- girl child is said to be aged about 10 years, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

6. The application is therefore rejected.

Sd/------ (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen