SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Kar) 438

R.B.BUDIHAL
Mohammed Harfath – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:S.Y. Kumbar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: B.J. Eswarappa, HCGP.

JUDGMENT

R.B. BUDIHAL, J.

1. This is the petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr. P.C seeking their release on bail, for the offences punishable under Sections 370(5), 370(A), 374, 344 of IPC and under Section 26 and 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act and under Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act and under Section 16, 17 and 18 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and Right to Education Act, registered in respondent police Station Crime No. 156 of 2014.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 during the course of his arguments submitted that the petitioners are not the owners of the factory and they are also the co-workers working along with the boys. He made the submission that so far as the present petitioners are concerned there are no allegations that they have committed the alleged offences, the submitted that the prosecution materials go to show that when the raiding party enquired with the present petitioners that who is the owner of the factory,





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top