Petitioner challenged denial of bail in trafficking charges. High Court denied bail citing serious allegations against the main accused, nature of offence, and victim statements, dismissing the parity claim with other accused.
Petition dismissed; liberty reserved to move similar petition after examination of material witnesses if advised.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4085 OF 2021
BETWEEN :
PRAFULLA NAYAK @ PREMA S/O GANESH NAYAK AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NACHINTA, MAHARAJPUR BALESHWAR, ODISHA 756 043 PRESENTLY R/AT #332, 9TH CROSS SANJAYNAGAR, MARATHALLI BENGALURU - 560 037. … PETITIONER (BY SRI MOHAMMED PASHA C., ADVOCATE)
AND :
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HAL POLICE STATION BENGALURU REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT CAMPUS BENGALURU - 560 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.R SHOWRI- HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING THIS COURT TO ENLARGE THE PETIRIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.314/2020 (C.C.NO.51663/2021) REGISTERED BY H.A.L. POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363, 366(A), 366(B), 370(A)OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
The petitioner - accused No.1 is before this Court
seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.314/2020 of H.A.L. Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 366(B) and 370 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant - Ridoy.
the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. He is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 31.01.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is the contention of the prosecution that CWs.1 to 6 were trafficked from Bangladesh to Calcutta and from Calcutta to Bengaluru, to force them for prostitution. There is absolutely no material to connect the present petitioner to the
offences in question. The petitioner is named as Prafulla Nayak but is referred as Prema in the charge sheet. No materials are produced to show the petitioner is named Prema. Sections 370(A), 366(A) and 366(B) of IPC are not at all attracted to the facts of the case. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Accused Nos.3 and 4 against whom similar allegations are made are already enlarged on bail. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the principles of parity. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. Since the investigation is already completed, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pretrial punishment. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions, that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
CWs.2, 3 and 4 were minors along with CW.5 were trafficked from Bangladesh and they were trafficked to force them for prostitution. After detailed investigation, the charge sheet is filed, which makes out a strong prima facie offence against the petitioner. The statement of the victim girls were recorded before the learned Magistrate, wherein, they referred the petitioner as one of the accused, who trafficked them from place to place knowing fully well that they will be forced for sexual offence. Both Sections 366(A) and 370(A) of IPC are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case. Even though accused Nos.3 and 4 are enlarged on bail, the principles of parity is not applicable as he is the main accused arrayed as accused No.1. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled
for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:
R E A S O N S
allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. He is the main accused and even the victim girls referred to the name of the present petitioner regarding the involvement in transporting them from one
place to another for the purpose of prostitution, it is specifically stated that it was accused Nos.1 and 2, who brought the victim girls to Bengaluru, kept in their house and thereafter, tried to traffik them to other places. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named as Prema as mentioned by the investigating officer and on the other hand, he is named as Prafulla Nayak, cannot be
accepted at this stage, in view of the prima facie material that are placed before the Court. The defence taken by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration at this stage to conclude that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis.
8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to move similar petition after examination of the material witnesses.
Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that CWs.1 to 11 are the material witnesses.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move similar petition after examining of the material witnesses, if he is advised to do so.
Sd/JUDGE
NR/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PRAFULLA NAYAK
STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.G.UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
