Allowed

Smt. Devi Prasannan D/O Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2023CRL.P/102386/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail petitions filed by two female accused facing charges under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and IPC regarding a brothel raid. The court held that continued custody was unnecessary despite apprehensions of witness tampering, provided strict conditions including bonds, address proof, and cooperation with investigation were met.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 released on bail subject to execution of personal bond, providing address proof, cooperating with investigation, not tampering with witnesses, and attending proceedings

Smt. Devi Prasannan D/O Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11818 CRL.P No. 102386 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102327 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102386 OF 2023

¶6

C/W

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102327 OF 2023.

¶8

IN CRL.P.NO.102386/2023

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. DEVI PRASANNA D/O SRINIVAS, AGE: 35 YEARS, R/O. 5TH CROSS, RENUKA NAGAR, BALLARI DIST AND TQ, 583201.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2023.10.07 11:57:18 +0530

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION BALLARI) REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580001.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FLIED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING THIS COURT TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO. 92/2023 REGISTERED BY GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION BALLARI FOR THE OFFENCES 3, 4, 5, 6 OF

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11818 CRL.P No. 102386 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102327 of 2023

¶21

ITP AND 370(A), 370(A) (2), 370 OF IPC PENDING INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL OF THE CASE BEFORE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BALLARI.

¶22

IN CRL. P.NO.102327/2023

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SMT. FARHANA @ PARVEEN W/O KHAJA HUSSAIN, AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O. WARD NO. 35, 3RD CROSS, SATYAVANI NAGAR, KOLAGAL ROAD, BALLARI DIST AND TQ 583201.

¶25

…PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION BALLARI) REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580001.

¶29

…RESPONDENT

¶30

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING THIS COURT TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRL.NO. 92/2023 REGISTERED BY GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCES 3, 4, 5, 6 OF ITP AND 370(A), 370(A) (2), 370 OF IPC PENDING INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL OF THE CASE BEFORE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BALLARI.

¶32

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11818 CRL.P No. 102386 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102327 of 2023

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively. They have filed these petitions under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) to grant them bail contending that they are innocent and law abiding citizens. They have not committed the alleged offences. They are falsely implicated in the case. There is no prima facie case made out against the petitioners for the alleged offences. Only on the basis of the alleged voluntary statement given by the accused No.2, accused No.1 is being implicated. Both the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are women. They are having family to take care off. They are the permanent residents of the address given in the cause title and owing movable and immoveable properties. Petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed and prays to allow the petitions.

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11818 CRL.P No. 102386 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102327 of 2023

¶38

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶39

submitted oral objections stating that on 18.08.2023 at about 4.10 p.m., while complainant was in the first beat duty, he received credible information regarding running of a brothel at Laxmi Nivasamu, 4th cross, S.M.V Nagar, kappagal road, Ballari. He brought this fact to the notice of higher officers and at 4.15 p.m. went to the spot and kept watch. He was convinced about the said information and in this regard he filed a complaint with prayer to take action.

¶40

2.1. Based on the same, the investigating officer has registered case in crime No.92/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 370(A), 370(A)(2) and 370 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of Immoral Traffic (prevention) Act1 1956 (for short, “ITP Act”). The investigating officer i.e. Police Inspector along with the other staff and witnesses proceeded to the spot and conducted the raid. In the said raid, they found victim-Sujatha and accused No.1 was present in the

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11818 CRL.P No. 102386 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102327 of 2023

¶42

house. The incrementing the article were seized through mahazer. From the spot, the victim led the investigating officer to 5^th Cross, Renuka Nagar, situated at Talur road at Ballari and pointed out accused No.1-Devi Prasanna.

¶43

2.2. At the spot, the investigating officer served notice to accused Nos.1 and 2 (petitioners) and since they did not co-operate with the investigation and there was sufficient material to proceed against them, they were arrested and brought to the police station. Later, they were produced before the Court with remand application and accordingly, they were remanded to judicial custody. The statements of some of the witnesses are recorded. The investigation is going on. At this stage, if bail is granted to the petitioners, they may threaten or tamper with the witnesses and also abscond and prays to dismiss the petitions.

¶44

Heard arguments and perused the records.

¶45

- 6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11818 CRL.P No. 102386 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102327 of 2023

¶46

Thus, petitioners are seeking bail contending that they have been falsely implicated and since 18.08.2023 they are in judicial custody.

¶47

It is the definite case of the prosecution that on 18.08.2023 when the complainant i.e. Assistant SubInspector of Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Ballari, was on the first beat duty. He received the credible information regarding running of brothel in a residential premises. After keeping a watch and being convinced about the same, he returned to the Police Station and filed complaint. On the basis of the complaint, case was registered and investigation was taken up by the police inspector. He went to the spot along with staff and witnesses and found the victim lady engaged in prostitution. She revealed that she was engaged in prostitution by accused No.1-Devi Prasanna. At the spot, accused No.2-Farahana was also found. After completing mahazer proceedings, the victim lady led the investigating

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11818 CRL.P No. 102386 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102327 of 2023

¶49

officer to accused No.1-Devi Prasanna. As both accused did not co-operate in response to the notice issued under Section 41 of Cr.P.C, they were arrested and investigation is taken up.

¶50

Since 18.08.2023 petitioners i.e. accused Nos.1 and 2 are in judicial custody. Having regard to the nature of the offence committed by them, it would be reasonable to expect that fair amount of investigation is completed. Consequently, continuing to keep the petitioners in judicial custody is not required. Of course, there is apprehension that the petitioners may threaten or tamper with the witnesses and they may also abscond. The interest of the prosecution may be safeguarded by imposing conditions.

¶51

For the above reasons, this of Court is of the

¶52

considered opinion that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for bail and accordingly, the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

Petitions are allowed.

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11818 CRL.P No. 102386 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102327 of 2023

¶56

¶57

Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are

¶58

released on bail, in Crime No.92/2023 of 3, 4, 5, 6 of Immoral Traffic (prevention) Act, 1956, and Sections 370(A), 370(A) (2), 370 of IPC, subject to following:

¶59

CONDITIONS

¶60

a) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each for the like-sum.

¶61

b) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall make themselves available for the purpose of investigation as and when required and they shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶62

c) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall furnish their residential address proof and shall inform the investigating officer/Court if there is any change in the address.

¶63

d) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶64

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11818 CRL.P No. 102386 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102327 of 2023

¶65

e) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

¶66

f) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Smt. Devi Prasannan D/O Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Devi Prasannan D/O Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

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

Prasad S/O Suresh Badiger Vs the State of Karnataka

Jagadish Bhavarlal Daya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Bhushan S Kadam S/O Shivanand Kadam Vs the State of Karnataka

Vidya Anandu Shetty Vs Suprabhata Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamita

Smt Farhana Alias Parveen W/O Khaja Hussain Vs the State of Karnataka

Uday S/O. Timma Mukri Vs the State of Karnataka