Allowed

Sri. M Hemanth S/O Mugabasappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2023CRL.P/102602/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the proprietor of a showroom accused of employing a child labourer. The High Court allowed the petition noting the petitioner lacked daily management control and the prosecution failed to produce documents proving the child's age or appointment details.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in event of arrest upon execution of personal bond with surety, appearing within one month, cooperating with investigation, and appearing on all dates.

Sri. M Hemanth S/O Mugabasappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12606 CRL.P No. 102602 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102602 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. M. HEMANTH S/O MUGABASAPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMAN, R/O: 1^ST WARD, ASHRAYA COLONY, SANDUR-583119, DIST: BALLARI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H.R.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS P.S.I. SANDUR P.S., SANDUR POLICE STATION, SANDUR-583119, DIST: BALLARI. BY ITS S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA, DHARWAD.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by V N V N BADIGER BADIGER Date: 2023.11.04 10:36:21 +0530

¶15

(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN SANDUR P.S. CR.NO.0097/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SANDUR IN BALLARI DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC 75 AND 79 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015 AND PRAYED TO ISSUE NECESSARY DIRECTIONS TO THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES IN THIS REGARD.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12606 CRL.P No. 102602 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri H.R.Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned HCGP for the State.

¶22

The present petition is filed for seeking

¶23

anticipatory bail in Crime No.97/2023 for the offences punishable u/sec. 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2015.

¶24

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶25

It is the case of the prosecution that, the NGO has

¶26

lodged a complaint on 23.08.2023 stating that they formed a team along with the Tahsildar and officers consisting of various departments have conducted inspection at Kudligi road, Sandur to verify as to whether any child labourers are working in the shops or any establishments. In the said process it is stated in the complaint that in Lakshmi TVS Showroom, one Hussain @ Moula Hussain, aged about 16 years was working. After

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12606 CRL.P No. 102602 of 2023

¶28

¶29

considering the age of the labour is below 18 years, a case has been registered against the occupier of the shop/showroom. The jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No.97/2023 for the above said offences.

¶30

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The age of the labour was not aware and the petitioner was not indulging in day to day affairs of the showroom and the said alleged child labour was not appointed by the petitioner.

¶31

It is further submitted that no documents have been produced by the prosecution to determine the age of alleged. In the absence of necessary document to determine the age of the child labour it cannot be said that the labour was aged below 18 years.

¶32

It is further submitted that the petitioner is permanent resident of Sandur and he is having deep root

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12606 CRL.P No. 102602 of 2023

¶35

in the society. He is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation as and when it is required by the jurisdictional police. Making such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶36

Per contra, learned HCGP for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the petitioner being the owner of the TVS showroom should have known the age of the labour who was working in the said showroom. The child labour has been appointed by the petitioner knowingly that the child who is

¶37

below 18 years and made him to work in the said showroom certainly violates the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Therefore, the authority has lodged the complaint which is appropriate and the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12606 CRL.P No. 102602 of 2023

¶39

Making such submission, learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶41

respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it appears that the petitioner is the Proprietor of M/s Lakshmi TVS Showroom situated at Sandur. There were number of employees employed there to work for the showroom. It appears from the record that even though the petitioner is the owner of the said showroom, the day to day affairs of the said showroom has not been managed by the petitioner. It is also noticed here that, the petitioner is not aware about the appointment of the alleged child labour.

¶42

It is further noticed that the prosecution has not produced the order of appointment of the child labour and also not produced any document to show that the child labour is below 18 years. In the absence of relevant documents it cannot be said that the petitioner appointed child labour in the showroom and the said child cannot be

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12606 CRL.P No. 102602 of 2023

¶44

considered as labour of the said showroom. Moreover the alleged offence is neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life.

¶45

In the light of the observations made above, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The petition is allowed.

¶48

The petitioner/accused is ordered to be

¶49

released on bail in Crime No.97/2023 in the event of his arrest by the jurisdictional police/respondent police on the following conditions:

¶50

a) The petitioner shall execute personal bond in

¶51

a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for

¶52

the likesum.

¶53

b) The petitioner shall appear before the

¶54

jurisdictional police within one month.

¶55

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12606 CRL.P No. 102602 of 2023

¶56

c) The petitioner shall co-operate with the

¶57

investigation as and when it is required.

¶58

d) The petitioner shall appear before the Court

¶59

on all dates of hearing without fail.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

CLK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri. M Hemanth S/O Mugabasappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M Hemanth S/O Mugabasappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Shashikant S Timmapur Vs Shri Pradeep S/O Balasaheb Narashetti

Shri Shashikant S Timmapur Vs Shri G. N. Shridhar S/O G.K.N. Murthy

State of Karnataka Vs Kanesh Phakeerappa Bhovivaddar

State of Karnataka Vs Sri.Annappa S/O Shaniyar Moger

Shri Laxmikant Basavaneppa Upashi Vs Kittur Rani Channamma Urban

Sri. Suhas S/O.Manikant Shah Vs Smt. Dipti W/O. Sahil Shah