Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30611
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, R-9, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai. – Appellant
Versus
Rasheetha – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.30116 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Santhosh
For the Respondents: Mr.J.Milton Pon Davidson
The learned Magistrate's decision to grant bail was upheld by the court, confirming no grave offences were established.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: This case involves the interpretation of certain provisions under the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, along with the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Facts of the Case: The case concerns a complaint regarding the employment of a juvenile as a housemaid, leading to allegations of punishment and non-payment of salary, registered as Crime No.846 of 2024.
Findings of Court:
The learned Judicial Magistrate found no grave offences to warrant remand and hence granted bail.
Issues: The core issue is whether the learned Magistrate erred in granting bail under these circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Magistrate's decision, noting that sufficient legal grounds for bail were established, stating, "no ingredients had made out for grave offences..." The final outcome: "Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed."
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint regarding unjust employment and non-payment. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments centered on the validity and implications of bail. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court reviewed the materials and found no grounds for remand. (Para 5) |
| 4. final decision to dismiss the petition. (Para 6) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.01.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.30116 of 2024 The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, R-9, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai.
Crime No.846 of 2024 ... Petitioner Vs.
Rasheetha ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483(3) of B.N.S.S, 2023, praying to cancel the bail granted to the respondent/accused passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, order dated 05.11.2024 in Cr.No.846 of 2024, on the file of Inspector of Police, R-9, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For Respondent: Mr.J.Milton Pon Davidson
O R D E R
This petition has been filed seeking to cancel the bail granted to the respondent/accused passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, dated 05.11.2024, in Crime No.846 of 2024, on the file of the Inspector of Police, R-9, Valasaravakkam Police Station,Chennai.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, on the complaint given by one Thangapandiyan, Village Administrative Officer, Ramapuram and Valasaravakkam, Chennai, that one juvenile was employed as a house maid in the house of the accused and that they were subjected to punishment and that their salaries were not paid, therefore, a case in Crime No.846 of 2024 came to be registered for the offences under Sections 143(3), 143(4) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, r/w. Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Sections 9, 16, 17, 18 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. The petitioner after registration of the case had arrested the accused/respondent and had taken her for remand before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee. The learned Magistrate finding that, no ingredients had made out for grave offences and the ingredients cannot be stretched into trafficking, and had refused to accept the remand and enlarged the accused on bail, with a condition that she should appear before the Police Station every day at 10.00 a.m. for a period of 45 days, challenging the order, the present petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate had committed an error in refusing to remand the accused and granted bail and he would seek for setting aside the order.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate rightly finding that the ingredients of the offences were not made out and the ingredients cannot be stretched for trafficking had refused to accept the remand. He would submit that the order has been passed on 05.11.2024 and subsequently, the respondent/accused has also complied with the conditions. He would submit that the maximum punishment in respect of the offences is only 5 years. He would further submit that the complaint was not filed by the relatives of the victim and the complaint was filed on the instigation of the petitioner and the learned Judicial Magistrate rightly find that ingredients were not made out, had granted bail to the accused/respondent.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused and perused the materials available on record.
6. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, dated 05.11.2024.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
