Azmat Khan vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

This case involves an anticipatory bail application filed by Azmat Khan and Mohammad Nazir, who apprehended arrest in connection with Crime No. 148/2019 registered at Police Station Kasdol (now Lawan), District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by Parasram Ratre, alleging that in 2018, accused Vishnu Patre offered jobs in a brick company with attractive wages. The complainant and other villagers went to Sahbegpur, Uttar Pradesh, where they were allegedly subjected to ill-treatment by the applicants and co-accused, treated as bonded labourers, denied basic facilities, and prevented from returning home. The applicants are accused of offences under Sections 370(3), 342, 374, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Held

The Court considered the facts and circumstances, including the submissions of the parties. It noted the allegations that the complainant and other villagers were offered jobs, went to Uttar Pradesh, and were subsequently subjected to ill-treatment by the applicants and co-accused, treated as bonded labourers, denied basic facilities, and prevented from returning home. The Court also took into account the materials on record and the fact that a co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. Finding it appropriate, the Court decided to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. The operative direction was to release the applicants on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing a surety, subject to specific conditions including not inducing witnesses, not acting prejudicially to the trial, appearing before the trial court, submitting identity documents, and not involving themselves in similar offences in the future.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of human trafficking and bonded labour? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued they are innocent and falsely implicated. They claimed the FIR is a misuse of legal process, asserting they run their brick manufacturing business honestly, provide advance wages, maintain staff registers, and possess a GST registration certificate. They highlighted that a co-accused, Vishnu Patre, was granted bail by the High Court. The applicants contended they are genuine businessmen and entitled to anticipatory bail. Respondent's Arguments: The State counsel opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, noting that the charge sheet had not yet been filed. The complainant's counsel stated they had no objection to the grant of bail.