The determination of bail in cases involving heinous offences like human trafficking often presents a difficult ethical and legal challenge to the courts. The case of Shakeel Makrani, Applicant/Accused No. 3 in Criminal Bail Application No. 477 of 2024, offers a critical insight into the factors that weigh on a court’s decision, particularly the completion of the investigative process and the filing of a charge-sheet. Makrani was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 72/2023 (Corresponding C.R. No. 904/2023 D.N. Nagar Police Station) for offences under Sections 370(4) and 370(5) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the trafficking of minors, and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, concerning illegal transfer or adoption of children.
Allegations and the Applicant’s Role in the Crime
The prosecution’s case narrated a distressing chain of events involving multiple accused individuals. The initial complaint was lodged by Rubina Khan, whose brother (Accused No. 1, Shabbir Khan) and his wife (Accused No. 2, Saniya) were allegedly drug consumers with precarious financial conditions. Rubina noticed that the couple, who had three children, were only accompanied by their eldest son, Subhan, while their two-year-old son, Hussain, and a two-month-old baby girl were missing. Upon persistent questioning, Accused No. 2, Saniya, revealed that due to their drug habit and lack of money, they had sold their two younger children.
The specific allegation against the present applicant, Shakeel Makrani (Accused No. 3), was that he purchased the two-month-old baby girl for Rs. 14,000/- from Accused No. 2. The police investigation based on this disclosure led to the baby girl being rescued from Makrani’s custody. The investigation subsequently unearthed a wider network of alleged human trafficking involving multiple accused (including Usha Manikappa, Vaishali, Shafik, Balkrishna B. Kamble, Sonobar Chiplunkar, and Tabassum S. Sain) engaged in the illegal buying and selling of minor children for illegal consideration, with no legal adoption processes involved.
Consideration of Bail Post-Charge-Sheet
Despite the gravity and serious nature of the offences, the applicant’s counsel argued for bail primarily on the grounds that Shakeel Makrani had been arrested on November 23, 2023, had undergone custodial interrogation, and, most importantly, the investigation was complete with the charge-sheet already filed. The counsel emphasized that there were no criminal antecedents against him, and there was no point in keeping him incarcerated indefinitely while the trial, which would undoubtedly take a considerable time to conclude, was pending. Furthermore, Makrani was a permanent resident of the given address, assuring his presence during trial.
The prosecution, while opposing the bail application, cited standard grounds such as the potential for the accused to flee justice, threaten witnesses, or tamper with evidence. However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajesh A. Sasne, focused primarily on the stage of the proceeding and the role attributed to the applicant. The court specifically noted that the charge-sheet had been filed and the investigation completed. This pivotal fact often shifts the judicial balance, as the primary objective of pre-trial detention—to facilitate a smooth investigation and collection of evidence—is largely satisfied once the charge-sheet is on record.
The court ruled that given the completion of the investigation, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the fact that the trial would inevitably be lengthy, further incarceration of the accused was unwarranted. The court concluded that Shakeel Makrani was entitled to bail, provided that reasonable conditions were imposed to secure his presence and ensure the integrity of the judicial process. Consequently, the bail application was allowed. Makrani was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a Personal Bond and Surety Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties, with liberty to furnish provisional cash bail. Crucially, strict conditions were imposed, including prohibiting the applicant from tampering with prosecution evidence or witnesses, and mandating his regular attendance at court hearings. This order serves as a reminder that even in cases of severe moral turpitude, the principle of ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ applies, especially after the police investigation culminates in the filing of a charge-sheet.