1
BA 758/2022
CNR NO.MHCC020043322022
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.758 OF 2022
Chitra Karthik
Aged 24 years,
Residing at 39/49, Keeraikara Street,
VTC, Bhavani, PO, Bhavani,
Bhavani, Erode,
Tamil Nadu 638301
.. Applicant
(Accused No.7)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through V.P. Marg Police Station
vide Cr. No.03/2022)
… Respondent
Appearance :
Mr. Tripathi Advocate for applicant/accused
Mr. Lade, A.P.P. for respondent.
CORAM : SHRI. S.D. KULKARNI,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 17/09/2022.
ORDER
1.
This is an application filed by the accused u/sec.439 of
Criminal Procedure Code 1873 for releasing him on bail in connection
with CR.No.03/2022 registered under V.P. Marg Police Station for the
offences punishable u/sec.363,370(4) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and u/sec. 81 and 87 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015.
2.
It is alleged by the applicant that she was told that one
2
BA 758/2022
child baby is there for legal adoption. She neither know about the sale
and purchase of the baby nor money involved in the said adoption. This
accused came to know that the biological father of the baby was with
him therefore, he believed on the said fact and in good faith help in
transferring the baby. The accused Laxmi is her friend therefore, she
assist her for giving the said child baby in adoption. The accused has
not played any role in extracting any amount. She never involved in the
criminal case hence, prayed for releasing him on bail.
3.
The prosecution opposed the application mainly on a
ground that accused has taken part in the alleged crime. She played
vital role in selling the child baby. The offence is serious in nature. If
accused release on bail the possibility of threatening prosecution
witness can not be ruled out. The accused Priya is still absconding
therefore, though charge sheet is filed. Investigation is in progress
hence, prosecution prayed for rejection of the application.
4.
The advocate for the prosecution relied upon the ratio laid
down in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda and Anr. V/s. State of
Karnataka and Anr. in Cr. Appeal 601/2017 therein it is held that –
Filing of charge sheet does not amount to change of circumstances nor in
any manner lessens allegations made by prosecution cannot be ground for
grant of bail particularly when bail application rejected twice and SLP for
grant of bail was also dismissed by Apex Court. Principle that accused is
presumed to be innocent till found guilty – Not applicable, cancellation of
bail, proper.
5.
Perused the application, say filed by the prosecution. Heard
all the advocates at length.
3
6.
BA 758/2022
The accused prosecuted for the commission of offence
u/sec.370(4) of IPC. The offence of kidnapping is not applicable to the
present accused. The charge sheet is filed on record therefore, it is
nowhere case of the prosecution that baby was sold for the purpose of
exploitation includes sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to
slavery or force removal of organs. On the other hand it is come on
record that the last person of the chain namely Jaikumar Shanmughda
Sundaram has received a baby for adoption. It is also come on record
that said Jaikumar wants to adopt the baby being a childless person.
The intention of the accused is not for human trafficking.
7.
The requirement of section 370(4) of IPC is the exploitation
of a person and exploitation by using threat, forged, abduction practice
of fraud or abuse of power. Here in this case it is come on record that
lastly child baby received from last accused, he has taken the custody of
child baby for adoption as he is childless. Therefore, exploitation of
baby is not at all come on record.
8.
Considering the limited role played by the accused and no
amount was recovered from them entitled for release on bail on the
point of parity also. The charge sheet is filed on record therefore, there
is no possibility of tampering prosecution evidence. Nothing is to be
investigate or seized from the accused. Accused is a permanent resident
of Tamil Nadu therefore, there is no possibility of flee away from the
justice. The coaccused has played similar role are released on bail
therefore the ground of parity is also applicable to the accused. Hence,
considering this, I pass the following order :
ORDER
4
BA 758/2022
1]
Bail Application No.758/2022 is allowed.
2]
Applicant / Accused Chitra Karthik arrested in CR.No.03/2022
under Section 363,370(4), 34 of The Indian Penal Code and Section 81
and 87 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
registered at V.P. Road Police Station be released on P.B. and S.B. of Rs.
50,000/ with one or two surety/s.
3]
The applicant / accused shall not tamper with the prosecution
witnesses and evidence in any manner.
4]
Provisional cash bail in the like amount is allowed. The accused
shall furnish surety within 4 weeks from the date of release from jail
failing which the cash bail shall stand forfeited without any separate
order to that effect.
5]
The applicant / accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.
SANTOSH
DIGAMBAR
KULKARNI
Date : 17/09/2022.
Digitally signed
by SANTOSH
DIGAMBAR
KULKARNI
Date:
2022.09.22
17:49:06
+0530
( S.D. Kulkarni )
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on
: 17.09.2022
Transcribed on
: 19.09.2022
Signed by HHJ on : 20.09.2022
5
BA 758/2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
22/09/2022
05.00 a.m.
UPLOAD DATE
TIME
J.S. Chavan
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H. H. Additional Sessions Judge Shri.
Room No.)
S.D. Kulkarni,
Court Room No. 30.
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 17/09/2022
ORDER signed by P.O. on
20/09/2022
ORDER uploaded on
22/09/2022