Karnataka High Court
Mohammad Azeez S/O Adamsab vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101793 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD AZEEZ S/O ADAMSAB
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: NEAR MASIDI, BANDIMOTE,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THROUGH BALLARI RURAL POLICE STATION)
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-01.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ANAND. K. NAVALAGIMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS
PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR. NO.
132 OF 2017 IN C.C.NO.(681 OF 2017) REGISTERED BY RURAL
POLICE STATION BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCES 3, 4, 5, 7 OF
ITP ACT AND 370 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE PENDING
INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL OF THE CASE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and also under Section 370 of the Indian Penal code, registered in respondent/Police Station Crime No.132/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as per the complaint averments, complainant is one D.Y.Suresh Dy.S.P. received the credible information that there are immoral activities at Havambavi in the house of Khadar. Later on he went along with the staff and panchas and at about 05.30 p.m. they came near the house of Khadar Basha. Thereafter, they saw that accused persons by name Pavankumar, Veeresh, and Smt. Kaju, who are the accused No.1 to 3 respectively, standing in front of the house, inviting the public stating that they have brought girls and induced them for the prostitution. Immediately, :3: the complainant rushed to the spot arrested the accused No.1 to 5 with help of the staff, recovered an amount of Rs.7,500/- and 55 condoms and as well as saved the girls who are said to be involved in the said activities. The police have recorded the statement of victim girls, wherein they have stated, the accused persons pushed them into the prostitution business and accused No.1 gave the accommodation for running the said brothel house. On the basis of the said complaint case came be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.5 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that even on the earlier occasion the present petitioner approached this court at the crime stage seeking his release on bail, but this Court by its order dated 17th :4: day of July 2017 rejected the bail application in Criminal Petition No.101419 of 2017. He made the submission that the allegations are against accused No.1 to 3 that they were running the brothel house. So far as the petitioner/accused No.5 is concerned, he is stated to be the customer, who went to that brothel house, there is no recovery of any cash or the condoms from the present petitioner. It is also his submission that now the investigation is completed, charge sheet is also filed. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be admitted to regular bail.
5. Per contra the learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the charge sheet material, there is prima facie case as against the present petitioner also, his earlier bail application also came to be rejected. Hence, he submitted petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
:5:
6. Perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the earlier bail order which is referred above dated 17th day of July 2017. Looking to the earlier bail order it is not on merits and the Court also observed in the earlier bail order that it will not touch the merits of the case as the investigation was still pending. But as submitted by both sides, now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. So far as the present petitioner accused No.5 is concerned, it is alleged that he is a customer, who went to that brothel house, and as it is submitted, there is no recovery from the present petitioner. So far as the allegations are concerned the petitioner/accused No.5 denied those allegations and he submitted that there is false implication and he has also undertaken that he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. The alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be admitted to regular bail. :6:
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.5 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.132/2017 registered by the respondent Police for the above said offences, subject to following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfactions of concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-