Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tarun Singha vs Unknown on 15 May, 2015
Author: Indira Banerjee
Bench: Indira Banerjee
1 232. 15.05.2015
.
debajyoti CRM No.4239 of 2015 In the matter of : Tarun Singha ...Petitioner.
Re: An application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 08-05-2015 in connection with Uluberia Police Station Case No.311 of 2015 dated April 28, 2015 under Sections 3/4/5/6/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
Mr. Navnil De ..... For the Petitioner.
Ms. Suman Sehanabis ...... For the State.
We have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the State.
The petitioner has been arrested in connection with Uluberia Police Station Case No.311 of 2015 dated 28th April 2015 under Sections 3/4/5/6/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act giving rise to G. R. Case No.881 of 2015.
From the report of the Inspector-in-Charge, Uluberia Police Station submitted in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, it appears that the police station 2 received a written complaint of one Sukanta Ganguly alleging that a flat in Malati Apartment was being used for prostitution.
The police went to the said flat and found that the local people had detained three persons, one Kabita Sengupta, who allegedly ran a brothel and lived out the earnings from prostitution, of a lady by the name of Chandana Dhara, also named as accused.
The police conducted a search of the room and recovered a wine bottle, whisky, two glasses, three pieces of cigarette butts, a used condom etc. It is apparent from the item seized that the room had been used for sexual purposes. However, there is nothing wherefrom it may be inferred that the petitioner herein was involved in the business of running a brothel in any manner. The statements indicate that the prime accused, Kabita Sengupta, was living out of the earnings of Chandana Dhara and this petitioner was possibly a customer. The seizure list does not reveal seizure of any articles to indicate that the petitioner actually resided at the flat in question or was even temporarily staying there.
In the Case Diary, there is no evidence that the petitioner indulged in any of the acts which constitute offence under Sections 3/4/5/6 or 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
On overall consideration of the materials on record in the Case Diary, we are of the view that custodial detention of the petitioner is not necessary.
3We, accordingly, direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom, must be local to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia and on further condition that the petitioner shall report to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station at least twice a week until further orders and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Uluberia Police Station without prior leave of the Investigating Officer.
The application for bail is disposed of.
Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent photostat certified copy of this order to the petitioner, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
( Indira Banerjee, J. ) ( Sahidullah Munshi, J. )