Sending Money To Complainant’s Relative By Itself Doesn't Indicate Involvement In Trafficking: Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Accused
The Kerala High Court was considering a bail application filed by an accused person booked in a case registered under Sections 370, 120B and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court granted pre-arrest bail to a woman allegedly involved in the trafficking of two children and held that the accused sending money to the complainant’s relative would not indicate involvement in the alleged crime. The High Court noted that the other two accused persons had already been granted anticipatory bail
The High Court was considering a bail application filed by an accused person booked in a case registered under Sections 370, 120B and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said, “The learned public prosecutor pointed out that petitioner had sent an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the daughter-in-law of the complainant, however, that by itself do not indicate any involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime of trafficking of persons.”
Advocate Sreehari Indukaladharan represented the Petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Noushad K. A. represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was alleged that the accused, after falsely promising employment for two children of the de facto complainant, trafficked them to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on a visiting visa, provided them an employment in the workshop of the father of the third accused person and thereafter, provided them with an apartment and hid some contraband in the car. The accused had allegedly managed to rope in the children of the de facto complainant in a crime under the Narcotic Drugs Statute of the UAE and had them arrested as well as imprisoned for 20 years, thereby committing the offences alleged.
Reasoning
At the outset, the Bench referred to the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2020) wherein it has been held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that the three accused persons in this case had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court, after noticing that the offence of trafficking of persons was not seen to be prima facie attracted. “A reading of the FIR does not indicate any serious allegation against the petitioner who is arrayed as the 2nd accused. The main allegations are raised against accused 1 and 3. Though there is an allegation of conspiracy between all the accused, already accused 1 and 3 have been granted anticipatory bail and hence there is no reason to deny pre-arrest bail to the petitioner”, it said.
The public prosecutor brought it to the Court’s notice that the petitioner had sent an amount of Rs. 15,000 to the daughter-in-law of the complainant; however, that by itself did not indicate any involvement. Thus, the Bench granted pre-arrest bail subject to a few conditions. The Petitioner has now been asked to appear before the Investigating Officer and subject herself to interrogation. “If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer”, the Bench ordered.
Cause Title: Aparna Nair v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:62207)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Sreehari Indukaladharan
Respondent: Public Prosecutor Noushad K. A.