KABC010087112024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL.MISC. No.3086/2024 Petitioner Smt. Lakshmidevi W/o Late Ramanna, a/a 34 Yrs., r/a No.23, maruthi Building, Defence Colony, Bagalagunte, Bengaluru. And also r/o Bethuru Village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District. (By Sri/Smt; Ramesh Aditya, Advocate) AND Respondent State by Bagalgunte 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 N. Soumya, Police Inspector, CCB, Women Protection Squad, NT Pet, Bangalore, for the offences 2 Crl.Misc.No.3086/2024 punishable U/s.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of IPC in their Crime No.117/2024 in the interest of justice.

2. On the basis of information of N. Soumya, Police

Inspector, CCB, Women Protection Squad, NT Pet, Bangalore, the respondent police have registered the case in Crime No.117/2024 against the petitioner and others 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 24.3.2024, 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:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out

sufficient grounds for her release on bail atthisstageasprayedfor? 3 Crl.Misc.No.3086/2024

2. Whatorder?

7.This Court has answered the above points are as under: PointNo.1 : IntheAffirmative PointNo.2 : Asperfinalorder forthefollowing:- R E A S O N S

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.117/2024 for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act, 1956, and Sec.370 of IPC on the complaint of N. Soumya, Police Inspector, CCB, Women Protection Squad, NT Pet, Bangalore. The petitioner is accused as per the FIR. It is alleged that on 23.03.2024 at at 11.15 hours the informant received information that the prostitution is being carried out by the accused at Defence Colony, Bagalagunte, within the limits of Bagagunte 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 – N. Soumya, Police Inspector, CCB, Women Protection Squad, NT Pet, Bangalore, along with her staffs and panchas after confirmation regarding the illicit activities conducted a raid over the aforesaid house and found that the accused indulging in prostitution business by using girls, who was victim of human trafficking and leading her life out of the amount of wrongful gain. . 4 Crl.Misc.No.3086/2024 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 U/s.370 of IPC is though non-bailable, but it is exclusively triable by this Court. 5 Crl.Misc.No.3086/2024 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 antecedents of petitioner that she has committed similar offences or any offences earlier. Hence, the apprehension of 6 Crl.Misc.No.3086/2024 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:- O R D E R 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 Magistrate in Crime No.117/2024 of Bagalagunte P. S., subject to the following conditions:- 7 Crl.Misc.No.3086/2024 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 6th day of April, 2024 ) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATHNAIK RAMA RAMA NAIK Date: 2024.04.25 16:21:53 +0530 8 Crl.Misc.No.3086/2024 Order pronounced in the open court vide its separate order O R D E R 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. 9 Crl.Misc.No.3086/2024