Allowed

Sri. Rohan Khazi Bist v. State by Rajarajeshwarinagar Police

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2021CRL.P/4924/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition sought bail for Accused No.2 in a trafficking case. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that since the petitioner is not required for further investigation and detention is pre-trial punishment, he is entitled to bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner enlarged on bail on a bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions.

Sri. Rohan Khazi Bist Vs State by Rajarajeshwarinagar Police — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4924 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. ROHAN KHAZI BIST, S/O LATE TEKHE BIST, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, # PLATINUM PURVA APARTMENT, JNANAKSHI LAYOUT, IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 098.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B.RAVINDRA, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, POLICE, REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT, BANGALORE - 560 001. (BY SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.129/2021 OF RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE

¶15

¶16

OF PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 370, OF IPC AND SECTION 3, 4 AND 5 OF I.T.P. ACT.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court

¶20

seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.129/2021 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Mangaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Si.Shivanna M, Police Inspector.

¶21

2. Heard Sri. B. Ravindra, learned Counsel for

¶22

the petitioner and Sri. H.R.Showri, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent -State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶23

¶24

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶25

submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. The petitioner was apprehended on 18.06.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. As per the contention of the prosecution, the Police have received credible information that brothel house is being run at Oyo Lodge, Rajarajeshwarinagar. On the same day, at 2.10 p.m., two girls were said to have been rescued. The petitioner is stated to have been found near the reception counter and he was apprehended. The petitioner is not the owner nor he is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. He is a sweeper working in the Lodge. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to

¶26

¶27

abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶28

Per contra , learned High Court Government

¶29

Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner and other accused for having committed the offences. Accused No.1 is the owner of the Lodge. He is running brothel house in the guise of massage parlour. He is involved in trafficking thef innocent minor girls from other States. The present petitioner is working as Manager and looking after the affairs of the Lodge. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are still absconding since from the date of registration of the case. 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.

¶30

¶31

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by

¶32

the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶33

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶34

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’

¶35

for the following:

¶36

R E A S O N S

¶37

The materials placed on record makes

¶38

serious allegations against all the accused including the present petitioner. Admittedly, he was apprehended on 18.06.2021. It is stated that accused No.1 is the owner of the Lodge in question, where the brothel house has been running under the guise of massage parlour. However, he is still absconding along accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. It is not the

¶39

¶40

contention of the prosecution that the present petitioner is required for further investigation. He is not required to be detained in custody. His detention in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶41

Accordingly, I answer the above point in 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The petition is allowed.

¶44

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.129/2021 of Rajarajeshwari Police

¶45

¶46

Station, Bengaluru on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶47

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶48

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶49

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Sri. Rohan Khazi Bist v. State by Rajarajeshwarinagar Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Rohan Khazi Bist v. State by Rajarajeshwarinagar Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apeksha Ashok Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Santhosh K Vs State of Karnataka

Miss. Ramla Shedfa Nancy Vs State by Narcotics Control Bureau

Sri.Sanjay Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha B v Vs State of Karnataka

Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka by