Bengaluru, September 8, 2022 — In a significant order concerning pre-arrest bail, the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-46), Sri. Manjunatha, granted anticipatory bail to Ansar Pasha @ Kiran Pasha, who is listed as Accused No. 4 in a case involving human trafficking and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

The order, passed on September 8, 2022, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5946/2022, directs the Madivala Police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 308/2017, which has subsequently led to the charge sheet being filed as CC No. 5823/2018.

The Background of the Case

The case originated from an information received by Sri A. V. Laxmi Narayan, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madivala Sub-Division, concerning the alleged running of a prostitution business at Moonlight Lodge located on Marutinagar Main Road, within the limits of the Madivala Police Station.

The allegations against the petitioner and others involve offenses punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act), and Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Specifically, the prosecution case is that the accused persons were running a prostitution business by trafficking CW.4 to CW.8, having induced them with the false assurance of providing jobs in Bangalore. They allegedly indulged these women in prostitution and were profiting illegally from the business.

On July 4, 2017, at approximately 7:55 p.m., the police team, led by the complainant, conducted a raid. During the raid, Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 were apprehended, and CW.4 to CW.8 were rescued. The police seized evidence, including condom packets and mobile phones, from the spot. Following the investigation, the police filed an absconding charge sheet against the petitioner and others before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. The petitioner, as Accused No. 4, was apprehending arrest, which led to the filing of this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Prosecution’s Objection and Court’s Rationale

The learned Public Prosecutor filed a detailed objection, arguing for the dismissal of the bail petition on the grounds that it was not maintainable on facts or in law. The prosecution essentially opposed pre-arrest bail, implying that the severity of the alleged offenses and the need for possible custodial investigation warranted rejection.

The court, however, carefully considered the arguments from both sides and the documents on record. In its analysis of Point No. 1, which addressed whether sufficient grounds were made for granting anticipatory bail, the court made several key observations:

1. Prima Facie Case: While acknowledging the prosecution’s submission that a charge sheet had been filed, which suggests a prima facie case against the petitioner, the court stated that at this stage, it could not definitively conclude the petitioner’s guilt.
2. Nature of Offenses: Crucially, the court analyzed the severity of the offenses. It noted that even if a prima facie case existed for offenses under the ITP Act and Section 370(3) of the IPC (which pertains to trafficking of a person), these specific offenses are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Section 370(3) of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court itself (CCH-46).
3. Absconding Charge Sheet and Investigation Completion: The court highlighted that the respondent police had already completed the investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner. This completion of the investigation was a significant factor, leading the court to conclude that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was no longer required. The primary purpose of arrest and custody (for the police) is interrogation and gathering evidence, which had already been achieved by the police.
4. Securing Presence for Trial: The court found that the petitioner’s status as a permanent resident (as detailed in the cause title, a fact undisputed by the prosecution) meant his presence could be secured easily. Therefore, the court dismissed the likelihood of the petitioner absconding.
5. Imposition of Stringent Conditions: The court determined that any objections raised by the Public Prosecutor regarding the petitioner’s potential non-appearance or tampering with evidence could be effectively countered by imposing stringent conditions on the bail order.

The court ultimately concluded that no purpose would be served by allowing the respondent police to apprehend the petitioner and keep him in custody when he was ready to face the trial and abide by the court’s conditions. Accordingly, the court answered Point No. 1 in the affirmative, ruling that sufficient grounds existed for granting pre-arrest bail.

Final Order and Conditions

The court passed the final order allowing the bail petition filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

The petitioner, Ansar Pasha @ Kiran Pasha, was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate, in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 308/2017.

The bail was granted subject to the following strict conditions:

1. He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
2. He shall not commit a similar offense or any offense in the future.
3. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without prior permission.
4. He shall not change his place of residence outside the jurisdiction of the 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 automatically canceled.
7. He shall furnish the notarized copy of his residential ID Address proof.

This ruling is a clear illustration of the balance courts must strike between ensuring an accused person is available for trial and protecting an individual’s liberty when custodial interrogation is no longer deemed essential for the investigation process.