KABC010088732024
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT:
Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.3143/2024
Petitioner
Smt. Saina Shekh @ Geetha
W/o Babu, a/a 47 Yrs.,
r/a No.3113, I Main Road,
Near Jagadguru School,
Vinayakanagar, Kamalanagar,
Bengaluru North,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bengaluru-560 079.
(By Sri/Smt; Lokesha, Advocate)
AND
Respondent
State by Viajayanagar P.S.,
Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.439 OF Cr.P.C.,
The petitioner being accused has filed this bail petition U/
s.439 of Cr.P.C., to release her, upon her remand to judicial
custody in the case registered against her by the respondent
police on the complaint of complainant-Sri Chandrappa Barki, ,
Police Inspector, CCB, Women Protection Squad, NT Pet,
2
Crl.Misc.No.3143/2024
Bangalore, for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4 and 5 of ITP
Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of IPC in their Crime No.59/2024 in the
interest of justice.
2. On the basis of information of Sri Chandrappa Barki, ,
Police Inspector, CCB, Women Protection Squad, NT Pet,
Bangalore, the respondent police have registered the case in
Crime No.59/2024 against the petitioner for the offences
punishable U/s.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of IPC.
The petitioner has been arrested and produced before
learned Magistrate on 26.3.2024, and wherein she was
remanded to judicial custody.
3.The petitioner claim innocence and submit that she has
been falsely implicated in the said case even though she has
not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint. She is
ready to abide by any conditions that would be imposed by this
court therefore the petitioner has prayed for allowing this
petition.
4.Learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection to this
bail petition in detail along with the report of I.O., by submitting
that this petition is not maintainable in law or on facts and for
the reasons stated in the objection and has prayed for dismissal
of the petition.
5.Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the
materials on record.
6.The points that arises for consideration of this Court are
as under:
3
Crl.Misc.No.3143/2024
1. Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds for her release on bail
at this stage as prayed for?
2. What order?
7.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
8. 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.59/2024 for the
offences punishable U/s.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act, 1956, and
Sec.370 of IPC on the complaint of Sri Chandrappa Barki,
Police Inspector, CCB, Women Protection Squad, NT Pet,
Bangalore. The petitioner is accused as per the FIR.
It is alleged that on 26.03.2024 at at 1.00 p.m. the
informant received information that the prostitution is being
carried out by the accused in a rented house bearing No.379,
situated at 5th Cross, RPC Layout, within the limits of
Vijayanagar P.S., by trafficking girls with promise to provide job,
induced and indulging them in prostitution business, who were
victim of human trafficking and leading her life out of the
amount of wrongful gain. The complainant – Sri N. Chandrappa
Barki, Police Inspector, CCB, Women Protection Squad, NT
Pet, Bangalore, along with his staffs and panchas after
confirmation regarding the illicit activities conducted a raid over
the aforesaid house and found that the accused indulging in
4
Crl.Misc.No.3143/2024
prostitution business by using girls, who was victim of human
trafficking and leading her life out of the amount of wrongful
gain. .
9.The contentions of the petitioner is that she is innocent
of the offences alleged against her and being member of
respectable family, and
having deep roots in the society is
ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court on her
release. It is also submitted that the petitioner do not have any
criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated in the
case. Hence, she prayed to allow this petition. Per contra the
learned PP submitted that the investigation in still in initial stage
and yet to be completed and hence at this stage it is too
premature on the part of this court to come to a conclusion that
the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against her.
Prosecution further submitted that the petitioner recruit girls and
women for forceful prostitution and by these illegal activities
they pose danger to the society. It is also contention of the
prosecution that they also trap young poor girls exploit their
poverty and indulge them for prostitution and at this juncture, if
they are let out on bail, they would carry the similar offence,
interfere in the investigation process, tamper evidence and
intimidate the victims. Prosecution prayed for the dismissal of
the petition.
10.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 and 5 of ITP
Act and Sec.370 of IPC, the said offences are not punishable
with death or imprisonment for life, out of them the offence
5
Crl.Misc.No.3143/2024
U/s.370 of IPC is though non-bailable, but it is exclusively
triable by this Court.
11.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. On perusal
of the records it is found that the petitioner/accused is ready to
furnish surety on her release.

If stringent conditions are
imposed for the release of the petitioner, who is already in
judicial custody since 24.01.2024, the purpose of prosecution
objections would be met with.
12. I have perused the averments made in the petition,
Order sheet remand application, complaint and F.I.R.
produced on record, it discloses that the petitioner has been
alleged for the offence punishable U/s.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act,
1956 and Sec.370 of IPC. At this stage this court cannot arrive
at the conclusion that the accused is innocent of the offences
alleged against her, until full-fledged trial. At this juncture,
there are no reasons to reject the bail petition as it is the
settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a
punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to
secure the attendance of the accused at trial. Therefore, I am
of the opinion that generally it is the rule to allow bail rather
than to refuse bail. The dictum of law is clear that though the
offence is serious one does not afford a sufficient ground to
refuse bail. There is no material forth coming from the
prosecution to show that the petitioner is required for custodial
interrogation for the alleged offences. Absolutely there is no
material forthcoming from the prosecution to show any
6
Crl.Misc.No.3143/2024
antecedents of petitioner that she has committed similar
offences or any offences earlier. Hence, the apprehension of
prosecution that there is chance of petitioner absconding, in
case of her release on bail does not arise. Hence, the
question of retaining the petitioner in judicial custody without
any reason does not arise from the facts and circumstances of
this case. Petitioner has undertaken to comply any conditions
which may be imposed on her release. 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.
Thus the apprehension of the learned Public Prosecutor can
be suitably addressed by imposing proper and necessary
conditions. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner
has made out sufficient grounds for her release on bail at this
stage as prayed for. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the
affirmative.
13. 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.439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
The petitioner is hereby ordered to be
released on bail on her executing personal bond
for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like
sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
7
Crl.Misc.No.3143/2024
Magistrate in Crime No.59/2024 of Vijayanagar
P. S., subject to the following conditions:1.The petitioner shall make herself
available for interrogation by the I.O. as and
when required till the final report is filed. Further,
she shall assist the I.O. in further investigation
of the case.
2.She shall not directly or indirectly holdout
threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure
them in any manner.
3.She shall not hamper investigation of the
case and tamper with prosecution witnesses in
any manner and shall not intimidate the Victims.
4.She shall not commit similar offences or
any offence in future.
5.She shall not leave the jurisdiction of
Bangalore City without prior permission.
6.She shall not change her place of
residence outside the jurisdiction of Bangalore
City without prior intimation .
7.She shall furnish notarized copy of her
residential ID address proof.
8.She shall appear before the concerned
Magistrate Court and this Court as and when
directed.
9.In the event of violation of any of the
above conditions, the above bail shall stand
automatically canceled.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me
and then pronounced in open Court on this the 8th day of April, 2024 )
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru.

MANJUNATH
RAMA NAIK
Digitally signed by
MANJUNATH RAMA NAIK
Date: 2024.04.25 17:04:16
+0530
8
Crl.Misc.No.3143/2024
Order pronounced in the open court
vide its separate order
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner
U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.