← Library
High Court of DelhiBAIL APPLN./1321/2016

Imamuddin v. State

2016-07-11Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi2 pages

$~50.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1321/2016 IMAMUDDIN ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms. Jyoti Gupta, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Kusum Dhalla APP with SI Arjun Singh, PS Khajuri Khas

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

% 11.07.2016 I have heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as the State. The status report filed by the State has also been perused. The petitioner seeks orders for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest under FIR No.1384/2015 lodged with PS Khajuri Khas.

The submission of the petitioner is that the FIR in question alleges that during raid on the petitioners manufacturing unit, one child from the manufacturing unit of the petitioner was rescued. The unit of the petitioner is described as a dying/ manufacturing unit. It is alleged that the petitioner was engaged in jeans dying with use of chemicals.

Learned counsel points out that the sealing order itself records that the unit of the petitioner is engaged in "dori making work". She submits that the petitioners unit is not engaged in manufacturing or dying of jeans. She also relies upon the affidavits filed by the mother and brother of the child Sameer, who is alleged to be between 6-10 years old as per the ossification test report of the child. The statement of the child Sameer recorded under Section 164 Cr PC is that he had worked for two days in the unit of the petitioner which is engaged in the manufacture of "dori" used in sofas. He was working on the machine.

Learned counsel submits that even the said statement does not make out a case of the engagement of the child in manufacturing or dying of jeans. It is further submitted that the petitioner is willing to join the investigation as and when called for by the IO.

Considering the aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that in case of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the IO. This order is subject to the petitioner joining the investigation as and when called for by the IO. The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses, or get in touch with any of them. The petitioner shall provide his address and mobile phone number to the IO, which shall not be changed without prior intimation to the IO.

Dasti.

VIPIN SANGHI, J JULY 11, 2016 sr