1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered against the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.288/2014 by Chamarajpet Police Station. Offences are punishable under Sections 370, 370A of IPC, Sections 3 and 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 and Section 23, 25 of Juvenile Justice Act.

2. Bail application filed on behalf of the petitioners has already been dismissed by the Court of the Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore on 2.2.2015 in Crl.Mis.Nos.1/2015 and 2/2015. The petitioners are apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police and hence they have approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

3. The learned Government Pleader has filed detailed objections opposing the bail application.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. The case on hand relates to employment of about 8 children below 18 years in a factory manufacturing leather bags at Bangalore. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are stated to be the owners of factory run under the name and style of “Nine Dots” situated at Babuline Nizamuddin Mohalla, Mysore Road Cross, Bangalore. Oasis India is a Non Governmental Organization working for the welfare of the children and women. They gave information to the respondent police that the owners of this factory had engaged children to manufacture bags and these children have been brought from Bihar with the help of touts and that they have virtually been forced to work and it is in the form of servitude. On receipt of the said information from Oasis India, Police Inspector Smt.Chandrakala attached to AHTCID, CID wing of Police, Bangalore along with the legal advisor of Oasis India and the officers of the Karnataka Labour Department went near the factory and the factory was identified by the legal advisor of Oasis India. The factory was surrounded by these people and found as many as eight minor children being engaged in manufacturing travel bags. Out of them, two boys were aged 12 years and other boys were aged between 16 to 17 years. Out of the said eight boys, two boys were from Nepal and others were from Bihar. At that time, neither the owners nor touts, who had brought these children to work in the factory were available. All the eight children were taken to safe custody and subsequently restored to their parents.

6. A report was submitted by Smt.Chandrakala, Police Inspector, CID Bangalore to the respondent Police, on the basis of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.288/2014. Since, petitioners who are the owners of the said manufacturing unit are apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, they have filed this petition.

7. Sri.Mohammad Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that prima facie provisions of Section 370 and 370A of IPC are not applicable to the facts of the present case and at the best provisions of Section 3 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 are applicable. It is further argued that only two children out of eight children were below 14 years and hence Sections 3 & 14 of the above Act are not applicable to the children who are aged above 14 years. It is argued that by no stretch of imagination, provisions of Section 370 and 370A of IPC as amended by Act 13 of 2013 could be made applicable in the present case. It is argued that maximum punishment that could be awarded under Section 14 of the Act could extend upto one year with fine it shall not be less than Rs.10,000/ and could extend to Rs.20,000/or with both and that the case is exclusively triable by the learned JMFC. Hence, he requests to allow the bail application and grant anticipatory bail as prayed for.

8. Per contra Sri.B.Venkatesh, SPP has opposed the bail application on the ground that provisions of Section 370 and 370A of IPC are primafacie applicable to the facts of the case more particularly in the light of amendm