IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7816/2017 BETWEEN:
H G Narayanaswamy S/o L Guruswamy Aged about 41 years R/at Akshaya Nilaya Nayakara Street 12th Ward, Gundlupet Town Chamarajanagar District-571 111. ... PETITIONER (By Sri M Sharass Chandra, Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka By Gundlupet Police Station Gundlupet Taluk Chamarajanagar District-571 111. Represented by the Special Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr. No.471/2017 of Gundlupete P.S., Chamarajanagara District, for the offences P/U/S 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Section 370, 370(A) of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.8 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and under Sections 370 and 370A of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.471/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.8 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar rejecting the bail application of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that in the averments of the complaint, at page No.15 of the petition it is stated that one Narayanaswamy is the owner of the resort, but presently the said resort is run by Sabin Maatev and P.K.Arunkumar, accused Nos.9 and 10. It is also his contention that there was a lease agreement between the petitioner and accused No.10 P.K.Arunkumar and the property was leased out to him. He drew the attention of this Court to paragraph No.14 of the said lease agreement regarding termination of lease, wherein in sub-clause(b) it is mentioned that carrying on such activities considered illegal as per law, which shows that present petitioner had leased out the property and was not in possession of the said property.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contented that petitioner is innocent and not committed the alleged offences. He has also submitted that this Court has already considered the bail application of accused No.10 P.K.Arunkumar in Crl.P.No.7763/2017.
6. Considering the materials placed on record, as the alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I am of the opinion that petitioner can be granted with anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and under Sections 370 and 370A of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.471/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and shall furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
bkp Sd/- JUDGE