Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving immoral trafficking. Court denied bail due to serious charges, petitioner's absconding, and requirement for investigation.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed; order in Negative.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5343 OF 2021
BETWEEN :
KHATHIM K S/O KUNNUMMAL MAMMUNCHI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.605, TELICOM LAYOUT K.P.AGRAHARA, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE NORTH BENGALURU MAGADI ROAD KARNATAKA-560 023.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI: TARUN SURANA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY S.H.O. BANASWADI P.S. BENGALURU-560 043. REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. (BY SRI: ABHIJITH K.S., HCGP)
… RESPONDENT (BY SRI: ABHIJITH K.S., 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.270/2021 OF BANASWADI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 OF ITP ACT AND SECTION 370 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner-accused No.7 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.270/2021 of Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru, pending before XI A.C.M.M. Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (for short 'ITP Act'), along with Section 370 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informantSmt.Anjumala.T.Nayak.
the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.7. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed
3
any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Since the petitioner is having reasonable apprehension of being arrested by the Police, he is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. It is the contention of the prosecution that the police received credible information regarding trafficking girls from Bangladesh and forcing them for prostitution. A raid was said to have been held on L.Seiol Service Apartment owned by the present petitioner. It is stated that accused Nos.1 to 6 were running brothel house. However, the petitioner is not concerned with the said business run by the other accused. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are already enlarged on bail. Now the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. Petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. He is from a respectable family having deep roots in the society. Chances of his abscondence is very rare. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and he is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions
4
that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.
5
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
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 438 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the
following:
R E A S O N S
6
petitioner is shown as absconding. It is stated that eight Bangladesh girls were rescued from the premises owned by the petitioner and other incriminating materials were seized. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is required for investigation, even though the charge sheet is filed showing that the petitioner as absconding. Considering all these facts and circumstances, Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative. The petitioner is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
GVP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?
Whether the petitioner's ownership of premises and absconding justify denial of anticipatory bail?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
KHATHIM K S/O KUNNUMMAL MAMMUNCHI
STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.G. UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
