1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2758/2014 BETWEEN: INDRANI BENJAMIN, W/O S.B.SELVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.32, ANJINAPPA TEMPLE ROAD, 8 TH CROSS, RAMASWAMYPALYA, BANGALORE-560084....PETITIONER (BY SRI P.M.MATHEW, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PULIKESHINAGAR P.S., BANGALORE-560005....RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.381/13 OF PULAKESHINAGAR P.S., BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3, 4, 5 AND 7 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC PREVENTION ACT AND U/S.370 OF IPC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2 ORDER This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and Section 370 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.381/2013. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-state. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that accused No.1 is the husband of the present petitioner/accused No.3. He submitted that accused Nos.1 and 3 have obtained necessary documents from the competent authorities to run the Salon and Spa and they have never involved in the immoral trafficking of girls as alleged by the
3 prosecution. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner draw the attention of this Court to the documents produced and he made the submission that these documents goes to show that they were running Salon and Spa and never involved in the alleged offence. Learned counsel made the submission that in spite of that, false allegations are made against the present petitioner and other accused persons, that they were involved in the alleged offence. Learned counsel submitted that the materials produced by the petitioner clearly goes to show that they have obtained the Registration Certificate issued from the Commercial Tax Department dated 17.11.2008 and also permission from the BBMP to run the Salon and Spa in the said building and the licence issued from the Labour Department. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions present petitioner may be enlarged on bail. He further submitted that the age of the present petitioner is shown as 32 years, in fact she is aged about 52 years of age.
4 4. As against this, the learned HCGP, during the course of his arguments submitted that raid was conducted at the said place by the complainant and his staff, so also the panch witnesses. The raiding party came to know through the statement made by the girls, who have been protected by the raiding party that, they have been involved in the prostitution business with the clients. He made the submission referring to the statement of one Shashikala, victim girl, in her statement she has stated that, she has joined the said institution but later on the accused persons told her that if, she is ready to cooperate with the clients, sexually, they can earn more money. In her statement, it is also stated that the accused persons told her that, henceforth she has to tell her name as Shanta instead of Shashikala. The averments made in the complaint as well as the mahazar proceedings goes to show that when raid was conducted, raiding party seized Rs.11,000/-, 5 mobile phones, 4 condom packets from the accused persons under the panchanama in the
5 presence of panch witnesses and they also taken 5 victim girls into their custody. So the materials said to have been collected during investigation and also when the raid was conducted, prima-facie they goes to show the involvement of the present petitioner also in the alleged offence. It is also the case of the prosecution that, from the date of the incident the present petitioner is absconding. Learned HCGP made the submission that the investigation of the case is still going on, Investigating Officer has to complete the investigation and has to file the charge sheet. 5. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion and to allow the petition and to grant the anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. Accordingly, petition is rejected. BSR Sd/- JUDGE