@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Budihal R.B, J.@mdashThis petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in Crime No. 258/2014 registered in respondent police station for offence punishable under Sec. 370, 323 of IPC and 16, 17, 18 of Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act 1976.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that false allegations are made against the present petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He made the submission that looking to the prosecution case there is no prima facie material made out by the prosecution against the present petitioner. Hence he made the submission by imposing any reasonable conditions the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that looking to the statement of the witnesses recorded by the investigating Officer during the course of investigation they prima facie go to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. Hence he made the submission that the matter is still under investigation and Investigation Officer has to collect some more material and he has to submit his final report in the case. Hence he submitted that at this stage the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other material produced in the case. Looking to the complaint averments Police Inspector on 12.08.2014 alleged that on 12.08.2014 morning at 11.00 a.m. Samuel George, Director, After Care International Justin Mission, Bangalore (I.J.M.) came to his office and met the S.P. (A.H.T.U.) by making written complaint and as per the order of the DIGP and S.P. the complainant and his staff I.G.M., N.G.O. and panchas and Deputy Tashildar, Harohalli and Harohalli P.S.I. along with his staff went to Brick factory when they verified such place, in Sy. No. 64 and 108 there is brick factory which was run by the owner of the brick factory Nanjappa, who brought the workers from different places by paying advance money and also making assurance that he will pay handsome salary to them and thereafter he started to give physical harassment to them and since from 4 1/2 years the workers are working in said factory and during raid they rescued six women and seven male persons and three children. In his complaint he has requested to take action against the owner of the said factory.
6. I have perused statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Looking to the statement of witnesses they prima facie goes to show that the owner of the said Brick factory brought the workers and employed in his brick factory and they have also stated that he was giving physical ill-treatment and harassment to them and exploiting them. Looking to the statement of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation they prima facie goes to show that the said 13 persons were employed in such brick factory and out of them 3 are small children. As submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader the matter is still under investigation and the investigating officer has to collect some more material, and has to file the charge sheet.
Therefore looking to these materials on record, I am of the opinion, that at this stage it is not proper for this court to allow the petition and release the petitioner on bail. But however immediately after completing investigation and filing of the charge sheet the petitioner is at liberty to move the court.
With these above observations the petition is hereby rejected for the present.
