CRL.P/8725/2015 of PUTTASWAMY GOWDA H N Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 31 December 2015

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATEBD THIS THE 3[ST]DAY OF DBECBEMBER 2015

BBRFORK

THRE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8725/2015

BETWEEN:

PUTTASWAMY GOWDA HH. N.»/O. SHRI NARASIMHE GOWDA.AGED ABOUT 52 YBARSOWNER OF S.L.V.LODGE2[NI]CROSS, MANDIPETE.TUMAKURU TOWN|R/O. HIRISAVI VILLAGECHANNARAYAPATNA TALUKHASSAN DISTRICT|ACTUALLY RESIDENT OF DABBBGHATTA VILLAGEKIKKERI HOBLI, KRIHNARAJPET TALUKMANDAYA DISTRICT — 571 401

_. PRHTITIONER|

(BY SRI YOGANAND P., ADV.)

AND:

THR STATEB OF KARNATAKA ©REPRBESENIBD BYTHR STATION HOUSBKB OFFICKTUMAKURU TOWN POLICE STATIONTUMAKURU —- 572 101.

—. RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.438)CR.P.C PRAYING TO BNLARGHK THE PRITTIONER ONBAILTN|THEBVBNTOFHIS.ARRESTTN|CR.NO.183/2015 OF TUMKURU, FOR THE OFFENCESP/U/S. 3, 4, 5 & 7 OF ITP AND U/S.370 AND 342 OFIPC..

THIS CRIMINAL PRTITION COMING ON FOR!ORDERSTHIS|DAY,THECOURT,|MADE,THEFOLLOWING:ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.|seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by therespondent police in crime No.183/195 for the offencespunishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ImmoralTraffic Prevention Act, 1956, and Sections 370 and 342|of IPC. |

2. The case of the prosecution 1s:

On the credible information received by the|respondent police, they have raided 8.L.V. Lodge on24.10.2015, situatedaT|secondCTOSS,|Mandipete,Tumakuru, with regard to the committing prostitution inthe said lodge. During the raid, the police have arrested some of the persons who are the customers and alsoseized some materials which are being used_ forprostitution like, three condoms, six mobile phones, notebook and cash of Rs.15,090/-. It was alleged that in theguise of getting a job to two girls, they have induced themand forced them to indulge in the prostitution. Hence,the case was registered against the petitioner who is theowner of the lodge. He filed a petition before the Districtand Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail. Thatapplication has been rejected by the learned District andsessions Judge on 16.11.2015. Being aggrieved by therejection of the bail application, the petitioner hasapproached this Court.

3. Sri Yogananda P., learned Counsel for the|petitioner submits that about six months ago, he haspurchased the said lodge for his livelihood. He has notinvolved in the said offences and has not induced any ofthe girls in the guise of getting them a job and indulged in the prostitution. Some of the customers have takenrooms and the petitioner cannot be held liable for thealleged offences. The police have falsely implicated in thesaid case and he is a respectable person of Tumkurucity. The marriage of the daughter of the petitioner hasbeen fixed in the month of January, 2016, and he isready to abide any of the conditions that may be imposedby the Court and hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.

4LearnedHigh|CourtGovernmentPleader|appearing for the respondent opposed for granting thebail on the ground that the petitioner himself being theowner of the lodge has involved in the prostitution andencouraging the same and he is not entitled foranticipatory bail.

So. I have carefully considered the argumentsaddressed by the learned Counsel appearing for both theparties and perused the copy of the FIR. |

6. The material on record clearly discloses that the|police have conducted raid in 8.L.V.Lodge situated atMandipete, Tumkuru and they have arrested some of thecustomers and two girls. None of the persons have madeany.complaint.againstthispetitionerregarding|inducement of girls for prostitution. He is a permanentresident of Tumkuru and owner of the lodge. Hence, |am of the opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatorybail.

7. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

a. The petition is allowed. |

b. The respondent is directed to release the|petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the allegedoffences, subject to following conditions:

i. Petitioner shall execute a personal|

bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnish|

one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction|of the concerned Court.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with the)

prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

111. Petitioner has to make himself

available to the Investigating Officer for|

interrogation as and when he is called for.

iv. Petitioner shall surrender before the|

concerned Court within a period of two weeks and execute personal bond with surety.

Any violation of the conditions imposed above,|

would enable the prosecution to seek for cancellation ofbail.

sd/-

JUDGE |

nv}