In a habeas corpus petition for anticipatory bail, the court refused relief because the petitioner admitted earning income from his spa through the purpose of prostitution.
Anticipatory bail refused; petition dismissed.
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.
Crl.O.P.No.5604 of 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
The petitioner / A3 who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1) and 5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act in Crime No.166 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.It is stated that A1 is the Manager of the Spa and A2 is the staff of the Spa. The petitioner the owner of the Spa. From that particular place three victim women had been rescued.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he had given it for rental to A1 and A2.
4.Taking into consideration that the petitioner earns his income by putting that Spa for the purpose of prostitution, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
08.03.2024
smv
1/2
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
smv
Crl.O.P.No.5604 of 2024
08.03.2024
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of offenses under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
PETITIONER
respondent police
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
