Karnataka High Court
Sri Anjan Kumar @ Anjan S vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.843/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ANJAN KUMAR @ ANJAN S.,
S/O SRIPATHI BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.53, 87TH CROSS,
MARUTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA
ALSO PERMANENTLY RESIDING
AT NO.1527/56, 42ND 'B' CROSS,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 069.
2. MUDDA
S/O VENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.53, 87TH CROSS,
MARUTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA.
ALSO PERMANENTLY RESIDING
AT HARALAHALLI, PANDAVAPURA,
R.S.MANDYA, KARNATAKA-571435. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SRINIVASAIAH M., ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADIVALA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.3/2022 OF MADIVALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU,
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 6
AND 7 OF ITP ACT AND SECTION 370 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.3/2022 of Madivala Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of ITP Act and under Section 370 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/ State.
3
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that these two petitioners running a brothel house by using the girls, who were the victims of human trafficking and indulged in illegal activities of procuring women from outside States. They were rescued by the complainant by raiding the said house. Hence, invoked an offence under Section 370 of IPC as well as Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that these two petitioners are innocents and they are the daily wage coolies working for the purpose of their livelihood. They have not kept any girls for prostitution. These petitioners are in the custody from the date of arrest and almost investigation has been completed and no need of custodial investigation.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that this Court yet to get the criminal antecedents against the petitioner. These petitioners are indulged in running a brothel house securing girls from other 4 States. Hence, their presence is required for further investigation in the matter.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and on perusal of the material available on record, and also looking into the factual aspects of the case and the specific allegations made against these two petitioners that they are running a brothel house, subjecting the girls for prostitution, who have been procured from outside State. Having taken note of the specific allegation that these two petitioners are running brothel house, the very contention that these petitioners are the daily wagers and on conducting the raid the victim girls, who are subjected to prostitution were also rescued. At this stage, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners unless the investigation has been completed.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
5
ORDER The bail petition is rejected. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to approach this Court after filing of charge- sheet.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*