The allegation being only that the petitioner had tried to commit immoral human trafficking act but could not succeed, the court granted bail: High court of Patna
The petitioner was arrested under Sections 344 IPC, “Wrongful confinement for ten or more days”, section 366, “Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage”, section 370(3), “Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one person, it shall be punishable”, section120-B IPC, “Punishment of criminal conspiracy” and 3(a)(b)/4/5(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. This petition is in connection with Dinara PS Case No. 9 of 2020 dated 03.01.2020. It is the second attempt for bail by the petitioner which was rejected by the judgment passed Criminal Misc. No. 20913 of 2020.
In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by honourable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 25th of August 2021 in the case of Jabbar Miyan @ Jabbar Miya and others versus the state of Bihar, criminal miscellaneous No. 19491 of 2021. Mr Md. Mushtaque represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr Ajay Kumar Jha represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference.
The following are the facts of the case, the petitioners were accused because he had kept the informant and two other girls in his house and did not allow them to go out. The petitioner runs a dance troupe and he attempted to commit immoral acts and human trafficking where he did not succeed and he had taken the informant’s signature on a blank paper after threatening them and told them the informant has been bought for Rs. 30,000.
The counsel representing the petitioner held that according to the FIR the informant stated that she was held for 10 days and she was allowed to go out only by fulfilling the contract agreement which was dancing and singing at various functions and the counsel held that the FIR was filed few days after due to money dispute. The counsel provided a supplementary affidavit as evidence to prove the same.
The counsel held that the allegations against the petitioners have been falsely implicated and the informant and other girls had taken the money in order to perform in the dance troupe however slater on the informants neither wanted to perform nor return the money and lodged this false case. The counsel submitted that according to the allegations there was no wrongful act and the girls were kept inside as they belonged from outside the state and they were taken care of properly and even after medical examination there was no wrong found out and the petitioner has been held in custody since the 4th of January 2020. Further, the counsel held that the entire family and their livelihood which they depend on has been damaged due to this false accusation and incarceration, therefore, the court is required to impose conditions to release the petitioner on bail.
The additional public prosecutor held that the petitioners have been directly accused by the informants who are the girls that they were confined wrongfully and against their wish and did not allow them to leave and the petitioner also tried to commit human trafficking.
The court held that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court held that taking into consideration that there is evidence to indicate that there was a professional relationship between the petitioner and the girls which may have gone sour and most importantly, actual physical abuse not being alleged and the allegation being only that the petitioner had tried to commit immoral act but could not succeed, the Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
The court concluded that “the petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, in PS Case No. 09 of 2020 subject to the conditions under section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to the good behaviour of the petitioner, and (iii) that the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the Court that he shall not indulge in any illegal/criminal activity, act in violation of any law/statutory provisions, tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking shall lead to the cancellation of his bail bonds. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”
Click here to read the judgment