Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sangramsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 2019
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
MCRC NO.8803/2019
Sangramsingh s/o Anup Dodwe & another vs. State of M.P
19.03.2019 (INDORE):
Shri Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Anil Ojha, learned GA for the respondent/State.
This is first application under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in connection with crime No.389/18 registered at Police Station Alirajpur, district Alirajpur for the offence punishable under sections 363, 370, 120(b) & 34 of the IPC and under section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Prosecution story in short was that on 11.11.2018 social worker reported at Police Station, Kotwali, Alirajpur regarding trafficking of children being carried out by one Shailendra Singh Rathore. The Police thereafter deputed decoy in order to apprehend the concerned. The deputed punter approached Shailendra Singh Rathore and gave him pre-marked currency for purchasing child. Shailendra Singh Rathore was then caught giving child to the decoy witnesses in presence of four other co-accused persons viz. Devisingh, Dines, Baisingh and Rinku. The case was registered and during investigation, it was found that one Dr.A.Raju, running Kesar Surgical and Maternity Hospital at Chhota Udaipur, Gurarat was involved along with his staff in selling 2 children. After investigation charge sheet has been filed under sections 363, 370, 120(b) & 34 of the IPC and under section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
The allegation against the applicant Sangramsingh is that he had purchased a child from Dr.Raju for a sum of Rs.15,000/- whereas allegation against Rajesh is that he had purchased a child from Dr. Raju for Rs.20,000/-.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the children recovered from these applicants were in fact being reared as their own children by the applicants and no case of trafficking under section 370 IPC is not made out against them.
There are other connected matters along with this matter. In all of them the applicants are either allegedly involved in selling or buying children. In general the arguments advanced by the learned counsel are that none of the kids recovered were being exploited or were intended to be exploited for any of the purposes mentioned in explanation No.1 & 2 of Section 370 of IPC, 1860. Section 370 IPC which is an offence of trafficking of persons is not attracted. It is also submitted that kids which were allegedly traded were such kids as were born out of illicit relationships and were given away by their mothers as they were unable and un-inclined to rear them up. Such children were being 3 reared by person acquiring them as their own children and they were not subjected to any kind of abuse.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that children were being sold of like commodities against the provisions of law and such illegal practice had thrown the door open to exploitation of children as there was no means of supervising as to whether children are being exploited or not and their interests are being served or not.
Case diary was perused and arguments were considered. Prima facie, it appears that children were being traded like commodity but it does not appear that they were being sold for exploiting them. All those persons who have bought the children have been shown to be bringing them up in normal manner and some of the purchasers have even demanded custody of the children.
There is substance in the submission that there is no evidence to suspect trafficking of children since there is no evidence regarding trading of children for exploitation.
The offence is apparently under section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act which prescribes for maximum sentence of 5 years of RI and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this application is allowed. The applicants are directed to be 4 released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for their regular appearance before the trial court during trial with a condition that they shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
C.c as per rules.
(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by Hari Kumar
Nair
hk/ Date: 2019.03.20 18:27:33 +05'30'