The petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.5 in Crime No.5(S)/2013/CBI/SCB/TVPM of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Special Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram for offences under Sections 341, 342, 363, 365, 366, 368, 376, 420 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1) and 6(1) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 2. The gist of the prosecution allegations raised against the petitioner is that the petitioner (A5) was conducting a brothel house in Ajman (which is a country in the gulf) with the help of A1 to A4 and the de facto complainant was the victim of human trafficking, who was employed by the accused in their brothel house in the aforesaid foreign country to satisfy the clients and that ultimately the de facto complainant had managed to escape from the clutches of the aforementioned accused. Accordingly, it is alleged in the aforementioned crime that the accused have committed the aforementioned offences of Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
3. Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, would urge strongly that the allegations have been falsely foisted against the petitioner and that the Investigating Officer could not collect any material to show the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. Even going by the version projected by the prosecution, it has only put up a case that the petitioner had financially helped the 2nd accused who conducted the brothel house. He would also urge that A1 to A4 have already been granted bail and that no purposes are to be served for getting the custody of the petitioner and that his plea for pre-arrest bail may be allowed by this Court.
4. Sri. P.Chandrasekhara Pillai, learned Standing Counsel for the CBI, would strongly oppose the aforementioned plea of the petitioner for anticipatory bail and would submit that the petitioner has been implicated by the victims about his role in the aforementioned crime and that the petitioner is the kingpin of the sex racket and that he was the main organizer of the brothel house in the aforementioned country in United Arab Emirates by playing the vital role in trafficking women from Kerala and illegally insisting them for sexual activities and to satisfy the clients brought by A2 and that he had collected a huge amount and the same amount was illegally sent to the financial concern in Kerala and that the huge amount collected by him in the brothel house has been deposited with a studio run by him at Ajman. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI would submit that this is a heinous and inhuman crime and because of the gravity of the offences and the sensitivity of the case, the case was transferred from the State Police for further investigation to the CBI, as per the specific direction given by this Court. He would further state that the house of the petitioner in Kerala was searched and he was given due intimation to surrender before the police for custodial interrogation and that in spite of all the various steps taken by the respondent CBI, his presence could not be secured till now and that he is continuing in the foreign country and that his refusal to come over to Kerala for co-operating with the needs of the investigation in this case, amounts, in fact, to absconding from the long arms of the law. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that CBI has issued interpol notices against the petitioner to secure his presence here and was also constrained to block up the passport of the petitioner and that in spite of this, the petitioner appears to be flying with his golden wings from justice (borrowing the words of Lord Russel) Learned Standing Counsel would also equally urge that custodial interrogation of the petitioner herein is highly essential as he is involved in the offence of human trafficking and that more aspects of the criminal culpability involved in the crime could be revealed by the custodial interrogation of the petitioner and that his custodial interrogation is also required to ensure the identity of petitioner by the various victims who have given statements before the police implicating the role of the petitioner.
5. Heard Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.P.Chandrasekhara Pillai, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CBI.
6. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent CBI, this Court need not go into the details of the matter as projected from the rival submissions made from either side, as detailed evaluation by this Court on those aspects is not really called for, taking into consideration of the fact that the investigation has not been completed. However, on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances in this case, this Court cannot brush aside the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respondent CBI that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly necessary for unearthing the wider aspects of this crime and taking into account the fact that it is a serious crime involving human trafficking of women for flesh trade and taking into the aspect that the case was transferred to the CBI for further investigation, as per the directions of this Court. Moreover, the petitioner's role has been clearly implicated by the various statements given by the victims concerned and by certain other witnesses during the stage of the investigation and it is only better in the interest of both the defence as well as the prosecution that this Court refrains itself from delving deep into those aspects least it may prejudice either sides. Various other aspects in this crime have been dealt with elaborately in the affidavit filed by the respondent CBI in this matter.
8. Moreover, the petitioner has been keeping away from the long arms of the law for quite some time, even though he has been arrayed as an accused, from the registration of the crime by the State Police. Though the facts dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case State of Madhya Pradesh V Pradeep Sharma reported in AIR 2014 SC 626, may not be identical insofar as there are no proceedings initiated under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as against the petitioner herein, the spirit of the legal principles laid down therein by the Apex Court that the relief of pre-arrest bail may not be granted while considering the discretionary relief by a court, has to be fully borne in mind by this Court in the facts and circumstances of this case. In the light of these facts and circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that this is not a fit case for exercising the discretion of granting the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner herein.
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
Vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge