Karnataka High Court
Manju Manohar vs The State Of Karnataka By on 23 May, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4232/2022
C/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4225/2022
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4232/2022:
BETWEEN:
MANJU MANOHAR
S/O LOKESH A
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/A NO.441, 1ST FLOOR
1ST G CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD
GIRINAGAR 6TH PHASE
BSK 3RD STAGE
NEAR PUSHPANJALI GARDEN
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560 085. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIRAGUPPI ALLAYYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.44/2022 OF
PUTTENAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/Ss.3, 4, 5 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC PREVENTION ACT,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4225/2022:
BETWEEN:
MISS. SONY @ DIPTI SONI
D/O ARVIND PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/A NO.13/10, 7TH CROSS
BHARATHI LAYOUT
NEAR CHRIST SCHOOL
SUDDAGUNTE PALYA
DHARMARAM COLLEGE
BENGALURU-560029. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIRAGUPPI ALLAYYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR. NO.44/2022 OF
PUTTENAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3,
4, 5 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC PREVENTION ACT, PENDING BEFORE
3
XXX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT,
BENGALURU.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These two petitions are filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 2, respectively on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.44/2022 of Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4225/2022 is the owner of the SPA and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4232/2022 is the Receptionist of the said SPA. On credible information, it comes to know that they are running a brothel in the name of SPA. In order to make 4 a wrongful gain, the customers were subjected to Cross Massage, Happy ending, Body to body massage and when the documents are insisted, no documents are produced to support the same. Hence, one of the receptionists was apprehended and a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that these petitioners are not indulged in any such acts and only a false case has been registered by the Police and also an allegation is that they were conducting Cross Massage, Happy ending, Body to body massage. The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4225/2022 is the owner of the SPA and though accused No.3 is the Receptionist, both of them have indulged in such acts. Hence, they are not entitled for bail. 5
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and looking into the material available on record, an allegation is made that they were conducting Cross Massage, Happy ending, Body to body massage. Having taken note of such allegation, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in favour of the petitioners herein, subject to the condition that they have to appear before the Investigating Officer to assist him for investigation.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petitions are allowed. Consequently, the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 2, respectively, shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.44/2022 of Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, subject to the following conditions:- 6
(i) The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the
Investigating Officer to complete the
investigation and they shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.
(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.
(v) The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three 7 months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*