Karnataka High Court
Smt Shobharani vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 May, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRL.P.No.2049/2014
BETWEEN
Smt.Shobharani
W/o Govindraju
Aged about 36 years
R/at No.102, Sanjana R.V.Apartments
No.141, 1st Floor
9th cross, 11th Main
Malleshwaram
Bangalore - 560 003.
... Petitioner
(By Shri.Chandrashekar R. D., Advocate)
AND
The State of Karnataka
By Malleswaram P.S.,
Bangalore city
Rep. By Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bangalore - 560 001.
... Respondent
(By Shri.K.Nageshwarappa, Government Pleader)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code by the Advocate for the
petitioner praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Crime No.47/2014 of Malleshwaram P.C., Bangalore City,
for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 370 of
the Indian Penal Code.
-2-
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this
day, the Court made the following: -
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
2. The petitioner is aged about 36. She is accused of offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The petitioner was said to be the occupant of a house, which was raided by a squad involved in implementing the provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. It is alleged that there was one man and two women along with the present petitioner who were present at the premises and on search, they had recovered cash of Rs.5,000/- from the man and mobile cell phones from al the others and also a pack of condoms, on the basis of which it is alleged that the premises was a brothel. And that the petitioner had forced the other women into prostitution and they were all minors. On those -3- allegations, a case has been registered against the petitioner.
3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from the fact that the petitioner may have been on the premises, the question of the premises being characterized as a brothel or others present as minors forced into prostitution is without any basis as there is no incriminating material that is seized except for vague allegations.
4. It is indeed to be noticed that except for noticing the presence of two women and a man in the premises and proceeding on the basis that it was a brothel and the petitioner was engaged in illegal trafficking would lead to a miscarriage of justice. In the absence of any other incriminating material, the case against the petitioner can hardly be sustained. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail. The petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond -4- for a sum of 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety for a like sum, subject to following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses.
(ii) She shall appear before the Investigation officer as and when required and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer.
(iii) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.
(iv) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court is at liberty to pass suitable orders.
SD/-
JUDGE SS