IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.5946/2022
Petitioner
Ansar Pasha @ Kiran Pasha,
S/o Afsar Pasha, A/a 40 Yrs.,
R/a No.170, Maruthi Layout,
Old Gurappanapalya,
BTM I Stage, Bangalore South,
Bangalore-560 029.
(By Sri/Smt: S. Manjunatha,
Adv.)
AND
Respondent
State by Madivala P.S.,
Bangalore.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.43 8 OF Cr.P.C.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this
petition 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 the event of his arrest in the case in their
Crime No.308/2017 (CC No.5823/2018) in the interest of
justice.
2. On the basis of information of Sri A. V. Laxmi Narayan,
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madivala Sub-Division,
Bangalore City, the respondent police have registered the case
2
Crl.Misc.No.5946/2022
in Crime No.308/2017 against the petitioner and others for the
offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5, 6 and and 7 of ITP Act, 1956
and Sec.370 of IPC. And after completion of investigation
submitted charge sheet against the petitioner before the
jurisdictional Magistrate Court.

Now the petitioner being
accused No.4 is apprehending his arrest by the 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 petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory
bail in his favour in Crime No.308/2017(CC
No.5823/2018) of Madivala P.S., at this
stage as sought for?
2. What order?
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:
3
Crl.Misc.No.5946/2022
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.308/2017 for the
offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370
of IPC, on the complaint of Sri A. V. Laxmi Narayan, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Madivala Sub-Division, Bangalore
City,. After completion of investigation the respondent police
have submitted absconding charge sheet against the petitioner
and others before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court.
It is the case of the complainant that on receiving credible
information that prostitution is being carried out by the accused
persons at Moonlight Lodge, situated at Marutinagar Main
Road, within the limits of Madivala P.S., Bangalore were running
the prostitution business by trafficking CW.4 to 8 with the false
assurance of getting job at Bangalore, and induced and
indulged them in prostitution business in the public vicinity and
were leading their life from the amount of illegal gain from the
said business. On 4.7.2017 at 7.55 p.m. the complainant along
with CW.2, 3, and CW.9 to CW.15 conducted raid, and
apprehended accused No.1 and 2, who were involved in the
prostitution business, and rescued CW.4 to CW.8, and at that
time seized condom packets, Mobile phones etc., from the spot.
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
4
Crl.Misc.No.5946/2022
charge sheet against the petitioner and others, 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, 6 and 7 of
ITP Act and Sec.370(3) of IPC, the said offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and Sec.370(3)
of IPC is exclusively triable by this Court.
10.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. The copies 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 No.4
before the I.O.,/Court the purpose of prosecution objection that
petitioner/accused No.4 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 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 permanent resident as shown
in the cause title and this fact has not been disputed by the
5
Crl.Misc.No.5946/2022
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 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 nonbailable offences. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the
affirmative.
11. 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.308/2017 (CC No.5823/2018) of
Madivala P.S., subject to following conditions:
1.

He shall not tamper with prosecution
witnesses in any manner.

6
2.

Crl.Misc.No.5946/2022
He shall not commit similar offence or
any offence in 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
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 8th day of
September, 2022)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

7
Crl.Misc.No.5946/2022
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.