IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7763/2017 BETWEEN:
1. Mr. Sabin Maatev S/o Maatev F G Aged about 32 years R/o No.21, 1st Cross Muniveerappa Extention Near Ganesh Temple L.R. Bande Bengaluru-560 032.
2. Mr. Arunkumar P K S/o Chandrashekar Aged about 42 years R/o Kovillakatta House Pumolo Post Sulthanbatheri Vynadu Kerala State-673 592. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri C R Gopalaswamy, Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka By Gundlupet Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building 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 petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.471/2017 of Gundlupete P.S., Chamarajanagara District for the offences P/U/Ss 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 petitioners/accused Nos.9 and 10 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Sections 370, 370(A) of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.471/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that one Sri N Ravindra, Inspector of Police, DCIB Branch, Chamarajanagar has lodged a complaint before the respondent-police on 01.09.2017 at about 7 pm alleging that on the afternoon of 01.09.2017 when he was in the office, he received a direction from the Superintendent of Police to conduct raid on Himagiri Resorts as some immoral traffic activities are going on in the said resort by trafficking women from various places and using for prostitution. Accordingly, the complainant and his staff had been to the place where he found that accused 1 to 8 were involved in prostitution and, as such, they have been arrested and taken to the custody. Thereafter, enquiry revealed that the girls were brought from various parts of the country and used for prostitution. It is also alleged in the complaint that certain articles were seized in furtherance of the investigation including money. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered for the alleged offences as against the petitioners and other accused persons.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.9 and 10 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that looking to the complaint averments and other prosecution material, there is no prima facie case as against the petitioners and none of the alleged offences are attracted against them. The prosecution material itself shows that one Narayanswamy is the owner of the said brothel house. Therefore, at the most, as per the allegation of the prosecution, these two petitioners are the employees. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that the prosecution material, the complaint and also seizure mahazar prima facie shows that when the raiding party visited the rooms of the said house, the women were found engaged in sex activity with men. The prosecution seized the amount as well as condoms from the said rooms. In the statement of victim girls who have been re-habilitated, they have mentioned the name of petitioner No.1 Sabin as the person who trafficked the women and brought them from various parts of the country and put them in the brothel house. Hence, looking to the nature and gravity of offences alleged, petitioners are not entitled for bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
7. The prosecution material shows that FIR was registered mentioning names of all the 10 accused persons including the petitioners herein who are accused Nos.9 and 10. The materials prima facie shows that when the raid was conducted in the four rooms of brothel house, they have seen women engaged in sex activity with men wherein cash and condoms were seized under seizure mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. When the statement of the victim girls engaged in the prostitution business were recorded by the Investigating Officer, they have stated consistently against petitioner No.1 herein that he is the person who brought them and pushed them to the brothel house to carry out prostitution.
8. At this stage, so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, in the statement of the victim girls there is no mentioning of the name of petitioner No.2. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioner No.2 can be considered for grant of anticipatory bail. However, looking to the nature and gravity of the offences, I am of the opinion that petitioner No.1 is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.
9. Accordingly, petition in respect of petitioner No.1 –accused No.9 is rejected and petition in respect of petitioner No.2-accused No.10 is allowed.
The respondent-Police are directed to enlarge petitioner No.2 on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Sections 370, 370(A) of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.471/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner No.2 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 No.2 shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner No.2 shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. Petitioner No.2 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.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp