Human trafficking: Ernakulam court slams police, grants bail to plywood factory owners

The court granted anticipatory bail to Amal K Muhammad and Anwar CM of Perumbavoor, Santhoshkumar B of Keezhillam, and Jince M Paul of Rayamangalam on Friday.
Representational Image. (File Photo)
Representational Image. (File Photo)

KOCHI: The Ernakulam Additional Sessions Court has lambasted the police for charging non-bailable offences relating to human trafficking and harsh treatment of children against four plywood factory owners who employed adolescents for hazardous work too.

The court granted anticipatory bail to Amal K Muhammad and Anwar CM of Perumbavoor, Santhoshkumar B of Keezhillam, and Jince M Paul of Rayamangalam on Friday.

On June 14, the assistant labour officer in Perumbavoor had detected the employment of adolescents from other states for hazardous work at various plywood factories owned by the accused persons, at Rayamangalam, Pulluvazhi and Keezhillam.

Based on the assistant labour officer's complaint, a case was registered at the Kuruppampady police station under section 370 of IPC, related to buying or disposing of any person as a slave, and sections 70 and 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, related to procuring a child to be abandoned, abused, exposed neglected causing mental and physical suffering and ostensibly engaging children in bondage for the purpose of employment.

While considering the anticipatory bail petitions, the court observed there is absolutely nothing on record pointing to the recruitment, transportation, harbouring, transfer or reception of any persons by the accused using threat, force, abduction, fraud, abuse of power or inducement.

“It seems the investigating agency was carried away by the belief that human trafficking has to be presumed when children or adolescents belonging to other states are deployed for work in the establishments in Kerala. At any rate, it is not possible for a court of law to arrive at a presumption in the above regard. Needless to say that the available materials, in this case, are not capable of making out the offence 370 IPC against the accused,” the court observed.

Similarly, for sections 75 and 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the court found no evidence on record except that children were involved in the case.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com