IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5112/2019 BETWEEN:
BABU RANJAN K.P @ BABU RAJENDRA, S/O ANANTHAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN, J. C. NAGAR, NEAR GELEYARA BALAGA, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560078.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHADEVA SWAMY P., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE THROUGH BIDADI POLICE STATION RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DIST. REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. P. YOGANNA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.181/2019 OF BIDADI POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.3, 4, 5 AND 6 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC PREVENTION ACT 1956 U/S.370 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. It is the case against the petitioner that he is a lessee of a premises situated at City Sight Layout in Sheshagiri Halli within the jurisdiction of Bidadi Police. The allegation is that the petitioner allowed the said premises to be used as a brothel house. The police, on credible information, went to that particular house and found that there were many persons indulging in prostitution. They seized various articles from the spot and arrested many persons and came to know that the petitioner is the lessee of the said premises. On the basis of that, a case has been registered in Crime No.181/2019 for the offence under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Section 370 of IPC.
3. At this particular stage, in my opinion, the police have to enquire into the matter, investigate about the previous past history of the petitioner and also other circumstances to ascertain whether it is a regular course of business that has been taken place in the said place or not. Further added to that, the petitioner has approached this court for anticipatory bail. When the allegations are serious and a presumption is there under the provision of Section 3(2) of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, in my opinion, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail, particularly anticipatory bail. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to move for grant of regular bail. In that eventuality, the concerned court has to take up the matter as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the bail petition without any undue delay.
Sd/- JUDGE MD