MUQEEM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 438 r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail. The FIR bearing No. 63/2013 was registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar under Section 314 Child Labour Act, 1986, under Section 23/26 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2000 & 16/17/18/19 Bonded Labour System (Abolition Act) 1976 and Section 374 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the allegation that raiding party was constituted who inspected some factories at Tyre Market, Bara Hindu Rao to rescue child labourers and for that purpose raid was conducted at four places including at premises No. 8151/2, Basement from where two children namely Mohd. Tasbeer, aged 10 years and Mujammin aged 11 years were rescued. The owner of the premises was Mohd. Muqeem, who is the petitioner in this case.

(2.) It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not the employer of the child labourers who were found in the premises in question. The petitioner had in fact taken the premises on rent. He gave labour contract for assembling the writing clips to Naushad and his brother Mutalim. The child labour is the relative of the contractor. The petitioner has been brought in just because of the fact that he is a tenant in the premises in question. No work of hazardous nature was being carried out at the property in question. Other co-accused were already granted anticipatory bail by Additional Sessions Judge wherein similar allegations were levelled. The petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each by way of the demand draft in favour of Delhi Child Labour Rehabilitation Cum Welfare Society on 1st May, 2013 and has no objection if the amount is released in favour of the children. The petitioner has been falsely implicated of this case. He is ready to join investigation and he has clean antecedents. As such, he be released on bail.

(3.) In the status report, it is submitted that statement of both the children has been recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. wherein child Mohd. Muzammil has stated that he was making wire clips in the workshop of the petitioner since three weeks for which he was paid Rs. 3000/- while second child Mohd. Tasbir stated that he was also making wire clips in the workshop of petitioner since two weeks but he was not paid any salary.