KABC010160592022
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.5981/2022
Petitioner
Krishna
S/o Selvan, A/a 28 Yrs.,
R/a No.329/1, I Main Road,
Raghavendra Swamy Temple,
Lavakushanagar,
Peenay Small Industries,
Benglauru-560 058.
(By Sri/Smt: Suresh, Adv.)
AND
Respondent
State by Rajagopalanagar
P.S., Bangalore.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.43 8 OF Cr.P.C.
This bail petition is filed by the petitioner U/s.438 of
Cr.P.C. praying for an order to grant anticipatory bail in his
favour and direct the respondent police to release him on bail in
2
the
event
of
his
arrest
in
Crl.Misc.No.5981/2022
the
case
in
their
Crime
No.100/2022(CC No.16530/2022) in the interest of justice.
2. On the basis of information of Sri B. R. Jagadeesh,
Police Inspector of respondent P.S., Bangalore, (hereinafter
referred to as complainant), the respondent police have
registered the case in Crime No.100/2022 against the petitioner
for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act, 1956.
And after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet
against the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court.
Now the petitioner being accused is apprehending his arrest at
the hands of respondent police. Hence, the petitioner is
constrained to file this petition and thereby he has prayed for
allowing the petition.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection to
this bail petition in detail by submitting that this bail petition is
not maintainable in law or on facts of the case and for the
reasons stated in the objection and has prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
4.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the
materials on record.
5.The points that arises for consideration of this Court are
as under:
1. Whether the petitioners have made out
sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory
bail in his favour in Crime No.100/2022(CC
No.16530/2022) of Rajagopalanagar P.S.,
at this stage as sought for?
2. What order?

3
Crl.Misc.No.5981/2022
6. This Court has answered the above points are as
under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
7.Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is
evident to note that the respondent police have registered case
against the petitioner and others in Crime No.100/2022 for the
offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act, on the
complaint of Sri B. R. Jagadeesh, Police Inspector of
respondent P.S., Bangalore. After completion of investigation
the respondent police have submitted charge sheet against the
petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court.
It is the case of the complainant on receiving credible
information that prostitution is being carried out at rented house
belongs to CW.12 Jagadeesh Pollappa Gowda bearing
No.153/5, situated at 8th Cross, Byraveshwaranagara, Laggere,
within
the
limits
of
respondent
P.S.,
Benglauru.

The
complainant- Sri B. R. Jagadeesh, Police Inspector of
respondent P.S., Bengaluru, along with his staff and panchas
after confirmation regarding the illicit activities conducted a raid
on 30.03.2022 at 19.15 hours and found accused indulging in
prostitution business by using girls, who were victim of human
trafficking. Victim girl was rescued by the complainant raiding
party and after production before the Magistrate has been sent
to the State Welfare Home.

4
Crl.Misc.No.5981/2022
8.The contention of petitioner is that he is innocent of the
offences alleged against him and he has not committed any
such offences. but, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the
respondent police after completion of investigation submitted
charge sheet against the petitioner, and hence, at this stage,
this court cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioner is
innocent of the offences alleged.
9. It is pertinent to note that even for the sake of
argument, it is accepted that there is prima facie case against
the petitioner for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of
ITP Act, the said offences are not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, but it is exclusively triable by the
Magistrate.
10.However, it is well settled principle of law that the
granting of bail is discretionary power of the Court and every
case should be considered on the basis of facts of each case.
At this juncture I would like to quote the dictum of law laid down
in the decision report in (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases
694(Siddharam
Satlingappa
Mhetre
Vs.,
State
of
Maharashtra and others) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that :-
“Sec.438 of Cr.P.C, is not extraordinary in
the
sense
that
it
should
be invoked
only
exceptional or rare cases – A great ignominy,
humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest –
In cases where Court is of considered view that
accused has joined investigation and he is fully
co-operating with the investigating agency and is
5
Crl.Misc.No.5981/2022
not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial
interrogation should be avoided, and anticipatory
bail should be granted – exercise of said
jurisdiction
requires
maintaining
of
perfect
balance between two conflicting interests viz.,
sanctity or individual liberty and interest of
society.”
And also the dictum of law and guidelines laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia V., State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565: 1980 SCC
(Cri) 465 has to be taken into consideration.
” What is the quantum of punishment is not
much important on the other hand, the Courts
ought to consider such nature and gravity of the
accusation and the exact role of the accused
must be properly comprehended before arrest is
made. Further the antecedents of the applicant
including the fact as to whether the accused has
previously
conviction
undergone
by
a
Court
imprisonment
in
respect
of
on
any
cognizable offence, and the possibility of the
applicant to flee from justice is also to be
considered. The
possibility of the accused’s
likelihood to repeat similar or other offences and
where the accusations have been made only with
the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant
by arrest him or her has to be looked into. It is
6
Crl.Misc.No.5981/2022
equally important to note that impact of grant of
anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large
magnitude affecting a very large number of
people has to be taken into consideration. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down
caution that the Courts must evaluate the entire
available material against the accused very
carefully and while considering the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail.

While granting the
anticipatory bail the balance has to be struck
between two factors, namely, no prejudice should
be caused to the free, fair and full investigation
and there should be prevention of harassment,
humiliation
and unjustified
detention
of
the
accused. While considering the objections of the
prosecution,
the
court
has
to
reasonable apprehension of tampering
witness
or
apprehension
of
threat
consider
of the
to
the
complainant at time of granting anticipatory bail.
Further the frivolity in prosecution should always
be considered while granting anticipatory bail.
Also order of anticipatory bail should not be
“blanket” in the sense that it should not enable
the accused to commit further offences and claim
relief. It should be confined to the offence or
incident, for which apprehension of arrest is
sought, in relation to a specific incident ”.

7
Crl.Misc.No.5981/2022
11.By applying the above dictum of law and guidelines
laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the present fact of
the case has to be analyzed and considered. The copy of
order sheet, complaint, FIR and charge sheet produced by the
petitioner is sufficient to satisfy the Court, that the petitioner
would be arrested by the respondent police for the alleged
offence, though the custodial interrogation of petitioner is not
required. It is pertinent to note that, if stringent conditions are
imposed on the appearance of the petitioner/accused before
the I.O.,/Court the purpose of prosecution objection that
petitioner/accused would not appear for trial would be met with.
At this juncture, when the petitioner is ready to abide by the
terms and conditions imposed by the court and when he is
ready to face the trail and offer due and adequate surety for his
release on bail, then this court is of the opinion that no useful
purpose will be served by allowing the respondent police to
apprehend the petitioner and to keep him in custody for
custodial interrogation. The petitioner is the the permanent
resident as shown in the cause title and this fact has not been
disputed by the prosecution, as such the presence of petitioner
can be secured easily, hence, the question of absconding of the
petitioner does not arise at all. The objections raised by the
learned Public Prosecutor can be met by imposing stringent
conditions.

On perusal of the documents, would shows that
charge sheet has been filed against him, and the concerned
Court
has
issued
process
against
him.

Moreover
the
respondent police have completed the investigation and
submitted charge sheet against the petitioner. There is
8
Crl.Misc.No.5981/2022
absolutely no grounds made out by the prosecution to reject
this bail petition. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the
petitioner has made out sufficient ground for granting
anticipatory bail in his favour at this stage as prayed for as there
exist reason to believe that he may be arrested in non-bailable
offences. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.
12. Point No.2: In view of answer of this Court on point
No.1, this court pass the following:ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s.438 of
Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail
on his executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with
one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the
concerned Magistrate in the event of his arrest in the
case in Crime No.100/2022 (CC No.16530/2022) of
Rajagopalanagar P.S., subject to following conditions:
1.

He shall not tamper with prosecution
witnesses in any manner and shall not
intimidate the complainant.

2.

He shall not commit similar offence or
any offence in future.

3.

He shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the concerned Court without
permission.

prior
9
4.

Crl.Misc.No.5981/2022
He shall not change his place of
residence outside the jurisdiction of
concerned Court without prior intimation.

5.

He shall appear before the concerned
Court as and when directed.

6.

He shall appear before the concerned
Court, within 15 days from the date of
this order, failing which the order stands
canceled, and
7.

He shall furnish the notarized copy of
his residential ID Address proof.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 22nd day of
June, 2022)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

10
Crl.Misc.No.5981/2022
Order pronounced in the open court
vide its separate order
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner
U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.