KABC010082562024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL.MISC. No.2928/2024 Petitioners 1.T. C. Umesh S/o Chandrappa, a/a 37 yrs., r/o Vasappa Colony, Mavinathopu, Tharikere Town Chikkamagaluru District. 2.Devaraju S/o Narasimhappa, a/a 49 Yrs., r/a No.250/1, Dasharathasing Building, Chuchughatta Main Road, Ganapathipura, Yelachenahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore. (By Sri/Smt: S. G. Siddalingappa, Adv.) AND Respondent State by Rajajinagar P. S., Bangalore. (By the learned Public Prosecutor) Crl., Misc., No.2928/2024 ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.439 OF Cr.P.C., The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed this bail petition U/s.439 of Cr.P.C., to release them, upon their remand to judicial custody in the case registered against them by the respondent police on the complaint of complainant-Sri G. C. Raja, Police Inspector, CCB, Women Protection Squad, NT pet, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act, and U/s.370, 370A(2) and 370(3) of IPC in their Crime No.32/2024 in the interest of justice. 2.The brief facts of the bail petition is that on the basis of the information of Sri G. C. Raja, Police Inspector, CCB, Women Protection Squad, NT pet, Bengaluru, the respondent police have registered case in Crime No.32/2024 against the petitioners for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act and U/s.370, 370A(2) and 370(3) of IPC. The petitioners were apprehended on 22.3.2024 and produced before the concerned Magistrate, and wherein they were remanded to judicial custody and till date they are in judicial custody. 3.The petitioners claims innocence and contending that they have been falsely implicated in the said case and further contending that they have has not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint. They are s ready to abide by any conditions that would be imposed by this court, therefore the petitioners have 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 Crl., Misc., No.2928/2024 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. Whetherthepetitionershavemadeout

sufficient grounds for their release on bail atthisstageasprayedfor?

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 petitioners and others in Crime No.32/2024 for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act, and U/s.370, 370A(2) and 370(3) of IPC, on the complaint of Sri G. C. Raja, Police Inspector, CCB, Women Protection Squad, NT pet, Bengaluru. The petitioners are accused persons as per the FIR. It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.03.2014 at 1.30 p.m. at 3.45 p.m. complainant received credible information from the informants that prostitution business is being carried out by the accused persons in a rented house bearing No.79, Ground Floor, Rajkumar Road, Prakashnagar, Rajajinagar, within the limits of Rajajinagar P.S., Bangalore, by Crl., Misc., No.2928/2024 contacting the customers through Mobile No.9900351199 and No.6362681503 by sending the photographs of the girls and after receipt of money, and by trafficking girls with the promise of providing job and money, induced them indulging in prostitution business and the accused persons leading their life out of the amount of wrongful gain. The complainant – Sri G. C. Raja, Police Inspector, CCB, Women Protection Squad, NT pet, Bengaluru, along with his staffs and panchas after confirmation regarding the illicit activities conducted a raid on the said house apprehended the accused and rescued girls, who were victim of human trafficking and seized the articles through panchanama in the presence of panchas Accordingly, complainant has filed the complaint against accused persons before the respondent police. Thereby accused persons alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act, and U/s.370, 370A(2) and 370(3) of IPC. 9.The contentions of the petitioners is that they are innocent of the offences alleged against them 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 their release. It is also submitted that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents and have been falsely implicated in the case. Hence, they prayed to allow this petition. Per contra the learned Public Prosecutor 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 petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them. Prosecution further submitted Crl., Misc., No.2928/2024 that the petitioners 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 petitioners for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act, and U/s.370, 370A(2) and 370(3) 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, it is 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 petitioners are ready to furnish surety on their release. If stringent conditions are imposed for the release of the petitioners, who are already in judicial custody for period of 13 days, 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 petitioners have been alleged for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act, and U/s.370, 370A(2) and 370(3) of IPC. Even though at this Crl., Misc., No.2928/2024 stage this court cannot arrive at the conclusion that the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them, 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. 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 petitioners are required for custodial interrogation for the alleged offences. Absolutely there is no material forthcoming from the prosecution to show any antecedents of petitioners that they have committed similar offences or any offences earlier. Hence, the apprehension of prosecution that there is chance of petitioners absconding, in case of their release on bail does not arise. Hence, the question of retaining the petitioners in judicial custody without any reason does not arise from the facts and circumstances of this case. Petitioners have undertaken to comply any conditions which may be imposed on their release. The petitioners are the permanent residents as shown in the cause title and this fact has not been disputed by the prosecution, as such the presence of petitioners can be secured easily, hence, the question of absconding of the petitioners 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 Crl., Misc., No.2928/2024 the opinion that the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds for their 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 petitioners U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. are hereby allowed. The petitioners are hereby ordered to be released on bail on their executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate in Crime No.32/2024 of Rajajinagar P.S., Bengaluru City, subject to the following conditions – 1.The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required till the final report is filed. Further, they shall assist the I.O. in further investigation of the case. The Petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a month i.e., on first Sunday of every month in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. before the I.O., till filing of final report or further orders whichever is earlier. 2.They shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court and this Court as and when directed. Crl., Misc., No.2928/2024 3.They shall not directly or indirectly holdout threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner. 4.They shall not hamper further investigation of the case and tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not intimidate the Victims. 5.They shall not commit similar offences or any offence in future, 6.They shall furnish the notarized copies of their residential ID address proofs. 7.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 3rd day of April, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATH RAMA NAIK RAMA NAIK Date: 2024.04.10 16:10:52 +0530 Crl., Misc., No.2928/2024 Order pronounced in the open court vide its separate order O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.