Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Petitioner
Versus
BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH @ VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH @ PANDIT – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 4444/2013 and Crl.M.A.15903/2013 (for stay)
Decided on: 29th NOVEMBER, 2013
Ms. Sonia Mathur, St. Counsel for CBI with IO Seema Pahuja
Mr. Davinder Hora, Advocate with respondent in person.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the gravity of the offences and the impact on society, which influenced the court's decision to cancel the bail and emphasize the seriousness of the allegations.
Headnote:
Criminal Miscellaneous Main Petition - Cancellation of Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 439(2), 482 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Sections 120B, 343, 344, 366A, 376, 420, 506; Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Sections 4, 5 - The court discussed the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the charges, and the principles for granting bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court emphasized the gravity of the offences and the impact on society, citing relevant case law to support the decision to cancel the bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, who was charged with serious offences related to human trafficking and exploitation of minors. The victim child was rescued from trafficking and revealed harrowing details of exploitation. The petitioner argued that the trial court's decision to grant bail was against settled principles of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the respondent were very serious and the nature of the charges was grave. The court emphasized that the trial court had virtually acquitted the accused before the completion of the trial and had not given due weightage to the victim's evidence. The court also highlighted the principles for granting bail and the factors to be considered in such applications.
Issues: The issues revolved around the grant of bail to the respondent, the credibility of the victim's evidence, and the seriousness of the allegations. The petitioner argued that the trial court had ignored the gravity of the offences and the impact on society.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to cancel the bail was based on the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the charges, and the principles for granting bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court emphasized that the trial court had not given due weightage to the victim's evidence and had virtually acquitted the accused before the completion of the trial.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order granting bail, cancelled the bail bond and surety of the respondent, and directed the respondent to be taken back to custody forthwith. The court clarified that no observation was being made on the merits of the case or the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
1. This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Main Petition u/s 439(2) read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent on 26.09 2013 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:
(i) An Anti-Human Trafficking Unit was constituted by the petitioner in January 2012 to develop specialization in the area of illegal human trafficking, especially trafficking of children and women for the purpose of begging, prostitution, pornography, forced labour in industries and other forms of exploitation.
(ii) On 17.02.2012, an e-mail was received by the petitioner from one Sh.Nirnay John, a functionary of an NGO namely “Mankind On Action For Rural Growth”, based at 14/B, Dali Fatak, Darjeeling regarding missing of a 14-year-old girl from Darjeeling. It was mentioned in the e-mail that ‘there seems to be an interstate gang operating and that there are more girls along with the victim’.
(iii) Acting on the said information, victim child was rescued by Anti Human Trafficking Unit of the petitioner from the area of village Munirka, New Delhi on 22.02.2012, while roaming in the company of one Smt. Sanjana Rai @ Ankita Rai.
(iv) Victim child was brought to CBI office where she was examined. The examination of the victim child revealed that she was brought to Delhi from Darjeeling on the pretext of providing her job at Delhi and thereafter she was raped by Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa and then was sexually exploited for commercial gain by the respondent and the co-accused persons.
(v) Accordingly on her complaint, a case was registered by Anti Human Trafficking Unit of the petitioner on 24.02.2012.
(vi) Since 04.02.2011 and till she was rescued, she was repeatedly raped by the accused persons as well as by their customers.
(vii) Investigation revealed that the victim child was forced to have sex with 8 to 10 customers daily and the accused persons were minting money from the said exploitation of the poor child victim. Investigation further revealed that the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons involved in the business of flesh trade is that, they were bringing minor girls of poor background from West-Bengal, North-Eastern States, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa etc. to Delhi under the false promise of providing suitable jobs to them and subsequently these poor girls were being raped and sexually exploited by the traffickers for monetary considerations. Investigation also revealed that these traffickers were residing in different colonies on rent basis and they were purchasing minor/major girls for a week or so and these girls were subjected to forcible sex by 8-10 customers daily.
(viii) During investigation, 5 traffickers were arrested by the Anti Human Trafficking Unit including the respondent. The respondent was arrested on 22.03.2012.
(ix) Three cases were filed, by which the petitioner could break the organized racket of traffickers in Delhi to some extent and arrested as many as 21 traffickers who were involved in trafficking of minors for the purpose of their commercial exploitation.
(x) On completion of investigation, a charge sheet under section 120 B read with Sections 343, 344, 366A, 376, 420, 506 of IPC and Section 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 was filed by the petitioner on 22.05.2012.
(xi) The charges were framed against the accused persons. On 17.07.2013, the victim child was examined as PW-3 but her examination could not be concluded. Thereafter on 06.09.2013, she was further examined, cross-examined and discharged. On 09.09.2013, an application for grant of bail was filed by the respondent which was opposed by the petitioner. The bail application was heard by the learned Trial Court and respondent was admitted to bail.
3. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petition has been filed for cancellation of bail on the ground that the Trial Court has granted bail to the responde
