Karnataka High Court
Rathna vs State Of Karnataka By on 29 May, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF MAY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2940 of 2013
BETWEEN:
Rathna,
Daughter of Hafiz Malliq,
Aged about 23 years,
Residing at Pike Pada Village,
Uttar Chabbis Pher Gana,
Bonga District, Culcutta,
West Bengal,
Now at Mysore - 570 001. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. A.M. Majawar, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka by
Mysore South Police
Mysore represented by
Public Prosecutor,
High Court Complex,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(By Shri. Raja Subramanya Bhat, Government Pleader)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in Crime No.295 of 2012 of Mysore South
Police Station, Mysore District, for the offences punishable
under Sections 343, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 and under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of I.T.P.Act and
Section 14 of Foreigners Act and Section 5 of Foreigners
Registration Act read with Rules 6 and 7 of Foreigners Rules .
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. It is alleged that the petitioner is Accused No.8 in a case instituted in the following circumstances:
On 10.08.2012, the Deputy Inspector General of Police and Nodal Officer of Anti Human Traffic Cell, C.I.D., Bangalore, is said to have received information of prostitution being carried on in the lodge known as "Sanmathi Deluxe" of Kadakola village in Mysore Taluk. Immediately he had deputed the Deputy Superintendent of C.I.D. to conduct a raid on the said lodge. Accordingly, one Hanumesh, Deputy 3 Superintendent of Police, along with his staff, conducted a raid where he found 11 women of whom 8 were rescued. On interrogation, it was revealed by them that they were all from West Bengal and Bangladesh and that they were abducted by Accused Nos.9 to 11 from Calcutta, who in turn brought them to Mysore and forced them to indulge in prostitution. It was further revealed that many of them have entered into India without obtaining passports and on a search of the lodge, 30 condoms and four cellphones were recovered, which according to the prosecution were being used for the business of prostitution and cash of Rs.1,700/- was recovered from the accused.
3. It is claimed that the present petitioner, Accused No.8 is said to be instrumental in abducting the girls and forcing them into prostitution. It is on this allegation that the petitioner's bail petition has been rejected by the court below. The petitioner is therefore before this Court and would submit that the rejection of the petitioner's bail petition was on the 4 footing that the petitioner was admittedly from West Bengal and she has no permanent local residence and therefore, in the event of her enlargement on bail, she would put herself out of the reach of the law and would hamper the trial and hence, would not be entitled to enlargement on bail.
4. However, it is seen that admittedly the prosecution claims that many other accused were also from West Bengal and Bangladesh and if going by the same token of reasoning if they have been enlarged on bail by this Court, there is no reason why the present petitioner should not be enlarged on bail. The presumption that she is recruiting or abducting other women and forcing them into prostitution, cannot be presumed merely on the discovery of several condoms and four cellphones when the lodge was raided.
5. Consequently, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:
5
(i) The petitioner shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with a solvent surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court below.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(iii) The petitioner shall attend the court on all dates of hearing.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court below without prior permission.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS