Karnataka High Court
Smt.Bharathamma W/O Venkateshalu vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 July, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101370/2017
BETWEEN:
SMT. BHARATHAMMA,
W/O VENKATESHALU,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: 12TH CROSS, RENUKA NAGAR,
BALLARI-583 101.
..PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINAND A. PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BALLARI RURAL POLICE
STATION, NOW REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH AT DHARWAD
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE
PETITIONERS IN SESSIONS CASE NO.16 OF 2017
PENDING ON THE FILE OF PEL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BALLARI (CRIME NO.483 OF 2016 REGISTERED
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3, 4,
:2:
5, 6, 7, AND 9 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC PREVENTION ACT
1956 AND SECTION 370 OF IPC BY THE RESPONDENT
BALLARI RURAL POLICE STATION).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is the petition filed by petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking her release on bail of the offences punishable under Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and Section 370 of I.P.C. registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No.483/2016.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that on the basis of the information secured by the P.S.I., Rural Police, Ballari on 15.12.2016 at 4.30 p.m. the P.S.I. and his staff and panchas went to the place near Talur Road, 12th cross, Renuka Nagar and found petitioner No.1 and accused No.2 and 3 and another were standing infront of the house of the present petitioner alleged to have running the prostitution business by :3: keeping a lady by name Smt.Afrin Banu w/o Basha and made the said lady to expose her body to the public saying to enjoy her by paying money, on enquiry Afrin told that her husband left her and petitioners kept her for prostitution. On enquiry, the accused No.1 i.e. the petitioner herein revealed that she is earning money by prostitution and she received Rs.2,000/- per customer and out of that she gave Rs.300/- to the lady who came to prostitution and remaining amount was distributed between the petitioner and other accused persons. The further allegation that the raiding party found Rs.2,000/- with petitioner/accused No.1 and 48 condoms in carton box and same were seized under panchanama. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State. :4:
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that looking to the allegations so also the statement of the witnesses, the similar allegations are against petitioner and accused No.2 and 3. Counsel made the submission that accused No.2 and 3 were already admitted to bail. He made the submission that even earlier also the present petitioner approached the Court and this Court by its order dated 23.03.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.100461/2017 rejected the petition on the ground that it is premature giving an opportunity to the petitioner to approach the Court after filing the charge sheet. Learned counsel submitted that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed and so far as the other accused No.2 and 3 are concerned, they were already admitted to regular bail. Hence, he submitted by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may also be enlarged on bail. :5:
5. Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that ground of parity is not made applicable looking to the allegations and facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that the brothel house is run by the accused No.1 and at the time of raid, an amount of Rs.2,000/- was recovered from the possession of accused No.1 and also the condoms carton box recovered. He submitted that looking to the statement of three victim girls; it goes to show that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. Hence, submitted to reject the bail petition.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the bail order wherein the petition is rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, so also the two orders of this Court wherein the previous bail petition of the present petitioner was rejected on the ground that it is premature and another :6: of this Court dated 17.04.2017 passed in respect of accused No.2 and 3.
7. Perusing the bail order in respect of accused No.2 and 3 at Para No.5 of the said bail order, this Court has already observed that looking to the allegations in the complaint that these two petitioners were also present in the brothel house which was run by accused No.1. It is also observed in the said paragraph that there is no recovery of any incriminating material from the possession of accused No.2 and 3. So far as accused No.1 is concerned, there is recovery amount as well as condoms. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record, the ground of parity is not made applicable to the present petitioner. The brothel house is prima facie run by the present petitioner. Looking to the recovery of amount from her possession, so also one condom carton box containing 48 condoms was also recovered by the police. Under such :7: circumstances and considering the statement of three victim girls, nature and gravity of offences, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE CLK