The allegation being only that the petitioner had tried to commit immoral human trafficking act but could not succeed, the court granted bail: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 194921 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 9 Year 2020 Thana DINARA District Rohtas Jabbar Miyan @ Jabbar Miya @ Abdul Jabar @ Abdul Jabar Alam aged about 51 years Gender Male Son of Ashik Miyan Resident of Village Karanj PS Dinara District Rohtasfor the 3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Dinara PS Case No. 9 of 2020 dated 03.01.2020 instituted under Sections 344 366 370(3) 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and 3(a)(b) 4 5(a) of the Immoral Traffic Act 4. This is the second attempt for bail by the petitioner as earlier such prayer was rejected by judgment dated 06.07.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 209120 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.194921 dt.25 08 2021 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the FIR itself the informant has stated that she was made to believe that after 10 days she would be allowed to go upon fulfilling the contract agreement relating to dancing and singing at various functions. He submitted that a few days after that only FIR has been lodged due to dispute relating to money. Thus learned counsel submitted that the matter be adjourned for him to bring on record the details with regard to the programmes held during the period in which three girls including the informant had 6. On the aforesaid stand of learned counsel for the petitioner on 04.08.2021 time was granted for filing 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed supplementary affidavit in which the following has been stated at paragraphs no. 2 to 5 “2. That petitioner is running Dance Party from many years ago for the purpose of marriage and other functions for public and name of Dance Party is ‘JAI CHANCHALA THEATER SANGEET COMPANY’ the new marriage season was to start from December to June Hence there are four among them three are dancers and one guardian are inter into agreement between Petitioner on 21.12.2019 In agreement it is stated that the dancers will remain from 24.12.2019 to 30.06.2020 and every night shall be paid Rs. 2500 each and total Rs. 7500 for three Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.194921 dt.25 08 2021 dancers to pay on daily basis and also to pay Rs 7500 2000= 5500 each As advance Rs. 30000 has been taken by Sarjun Ram for three dancers and all four persons three dancers and one guardian Sarjun Ram signed upon agreement and also stated in agreement that ‘LAGAN IJJAT KA MAMLA HAI PROPRITOR JABBAR KHAN KO BEYIJJAT NAHI HONE DEGI’ copy of the agreement is Annexure 4 of Bail 3. That the Petitioner Dance company is still going on in which other dancers are present 4. That it is submitted that as per agreement Annexure 4 to Bail Application) And in view of the agreement Petitioner and his sonbooked many sattas in hope to be performed by the informant and her members but only after ten days of agreement they not only refused to perform in program but also denied to return the taken advance of Petitioner and also planted the Petitioner in false 5. That it is submitted that due to refusal of the informant and her members Petitioner have to gain heavy loss in sudden arrangements of other dancers sattas i.e. 22.01.2020 in different dates of 25.02.2020 04.05.2020 12.05.2020 19.05.2020 09.12.2020 19.05.2020 02.05.2021 05.06.2021 20.05.2021 21.05.2021 26.05.2021 and 28.05.2021 Copies of the sattas are prepared in two sets one is handed over to the satta holder and one of the same is kept in the office of Petitioner.” 8. Copies of the said documents referred have also been annexed to the supplementary affidavit 9. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had kept the informant and two other girls in his house not allowing them to go out and it is further alleged that they had been hired by the petitioner who runs a dance troupe and that he had also Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.194921 dt.25 08 2021 made attempt to commit immoral act but could not succeed and further that he had taken their signature on blank paper by putting them under threat and had told them that he had bought them for Rs. 30 000 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation is false and the informant and other girls had taken money to perform in his dance troupe and because they neither wanted to perform nor return the money this false case has been instituted. Learned counsel submitted that as per the allegation itself no wrong act was committed and at best only the informant and the girls were being pressurized. It was submitted that the girls because they belong from outside the State were being kept at the house of the petitioner where they were also being properly taken care of with regard to boarding and lodging. Learned counsel further submitted that the medical examination does not disclose any wrong doing and the petitioner is in custody since 04.01.2020 11. Learned APP submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of keeping the girls against their wish and not allowing them to leave and also of trying to commit immoral Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.194921 dt.25 08 2021 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his entire family and livelihood has been ruined because of the false case and incarceration and that the Court may impose strict conditions for his release on bail 13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties taking into consideration that there is material to indicate that there was a professional relationship between the parties which may have gone sour and most importantly actual physical abuse not being alleged and the allegation being only that the petitioner had tried to commit immoral act but could not succeed the Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner 14. Accordingly let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25 000 that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to good behaviour of the petitioner and that the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the Court that he shall not indulge in any illegal criminal activity act in violation of any law statutory Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.194921 dt.25 08 2021 provisions tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. The petitioner shall cooperate in the case and be present before the Court on each and every date. Failure to cooperate or being absent on two consecutive dates without sufficient cause shall also lead to cancellation of his bail bonds 15. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the 16. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner was arrested under Sections 344 IPC, “Wrongful confinement for ten or more days”, section 366, “Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her mar­riage”, section 370(3), “Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one person, it shall be punishable”, section120-B IPC, “Punishment of criminal conspiracy” and 3(a)(b)/4/5(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. This petition is in connection with Dinara PS Case No. 9 of 2020 dated 03.01.2020. It is the second attempt for bail by the petitioner which was rejected by the judgment passed Criminal Misc. No. 20913 of 2020. In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by honourable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 25th of August 2021 in the case of Jabbar Miyan @ Jabbar Miya and others versus the state of Bihar, criminal miscellaneous No. 19491 of 2021. Mr Md. Mushtaque represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr Ajay Kumar Jha represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioners were accused because he had kept the informant and two other girls in his house and did not allow them to go out. The petitioner runs a dance troupe and he attempted to commit immoral acts and human trafficking where he did not succeed and he had taken the informant’s signature on a blank paper after threatening them and told them the informant has been bought for Rs. 30,000. The counsel representing the petitioner held that according to the FIR the informant stated that she was held for 10 days and she was allowed to go out only by fulfilling the contract agreement which was dancing and singing at various functions and the counsel held that the FIR was filed few days after due to money dispute. The counsel provided a supplementary affidavit as evidence to prove the same. The counsel held that the allegations against the petitioners have been falsely implicated and the informant and other girls had taken the money in order to perform in the dance troupe however slater on the informants neither wanted to perform nor return the money and lodged this false case. The counsel submitted that according to the allegations there was no wrongful act and the girls were kept inside as they belonged from outside the state and they were taken care of properly and even after medical examination there was no wrong found out and the petitioner has been held in custody since the 4th of January 2020. Further, the counsel held that the entire family and their livelihood which they depend on has been damaged due to this false accusation and incarceration, therefore, the court is required to impose conditions to release the petitioner on bail. The additional public prosecutor held that the petitioners have been directly accused by the informants who are the girls that they were confined wrongfully and against their wish and did not allow them to leave and the petitioner also tried to commit human trafficking. The court held that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case the court held that taking into consideration that there is evidence to indicate that there was a professional relationship between the petitioner and the girls which may have gone sour and most importantly, actual physical abuse not being alleged and the allegation being only that the petitioner had tried to commit immoral act but could not succeed, the Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The court concluded that “the petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, in PS Case No. 09 of 2020 subject to the conditions under section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to the good behaviour of the petitioner, and (iii) that the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the Court that he shall not indulge in any illegal/criminal activity, act in violation of any law/statutory provisions, tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking shall lead to the cancellation of his bail bonds. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”