Allowed

Abhishek @ R.S. Abhishek v. State by Kengeri Police Station

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2021CRL.P/6239/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Bengaluru allowed a criminal petition seeking enlargement on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for accused charged with running a brothel house under IPC and ITP Act, subject to conditions and bond.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Petitioners enlarged on bail subject to bond of 2 Lakhs each with two sureties and conditions not to commit offences, interfere with witnesses, and appear as required.

Abhishek @ R.S. Abhishek Vs State by Kengeri Police Station — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6239 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

ABHISHEK @ R.S. ABHISHEK

¶9

AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶10

S/O SHIVANNA @ SHIVANNA NAYAKA R/AT NO: NILAVAGILU, HANAGUDU POST

¶11

HUNASURU TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105.

¶12

PERMANENTLY R/O AT NO: RAMENAHALLI, HANAGUDU POST HUNASURU TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105.

¶13

NANDHAN S/O DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT NO.VALAGERE MENASU K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 436.

¶14

… PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI: PRASANNA RAO R., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND :

¶17

STATE BY KENGERI POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

… RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI: H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.165/2021 REGISTERED BY KENGERI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 370 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 6 OF I.T.P. ACT.

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.165/2021 of Kengeri Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ITP Act), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Thimmegowda.

¶25

Heard Sri. R.Prasanna Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri. H.R.Showri, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted

¶27

that these petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2. They have not committed any offences as alleged. They have been falsely implicated in the matter without any

¶28

¶29

basis. They were apprehended on 08.06.2021 and since then they are in judicial custody. Accused Nos.3 and 6 are already enlarged on bail. Therefore, on the ground of parity these petitioners are also entitled to be enlarged on bail. The major portion of the investigation is already completed. These petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents. They are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petition and are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶30

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. Accused Nos.1 and 2/Petitioners herein, were running Brothel House. Even though accused No.3 is said to be a pimp and accused No.6 is the customer, are enlarged on bail, since their role in the commission of offence is different in nature. Hence, these

¶31

¶32

petitioners cannot seek parity as that of accused Nos.3 and 6. The statement of three victim girls were recorded by the Investigating Officer, wherein, the victim girls have specifically named these petitioners. Under such circumstances, these petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶34

“Whether these petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶35

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for

¶36

the following:

¶37

R E A S O N S

¶38

The materials placed before the Court disclose strong prima facie case against the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the matter cannot be accepted at this stage.

¶39

¶40

Even though, it is contended that accused Nos.3 and 6 are already enlarged on bail, the overt act alleged against them is entirely different. The allegation made against these petitioners is that they themselves running the Brothel House and the victim girls have specifically mentioned the names of these petitioners. However, it is not in dispute that major portion of investigation is completed. It is not the contention of the prosecution that these petitioners are having any criminal antecedents. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reasons to detain these petitioners in custody, which would amount to denial of their right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that these petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioners 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

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed.

¶45

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.165 of 2021 of Kengeri Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶46

a). The petitioners shall not commit similar offences.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

If in case, the petitioners violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶50

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioners, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to

¶51

¶52

verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioners and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioners on bail.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

SMJ

Abhishek @ R.S. Abhishek v. State by Kengeri Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek @ R.S. Abhishek v. State by Kengeri Police Station

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

K Madhu @ Mada Vs State of Karnataka by S.H.O.

Sri. Bharamappa K Vs State of Karnataka

John Nonso Egwu Vs State of Karnataka

Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Shrinivasa S.N @ Sheena

Joy B Vs the State by