BENGALURU – A City Civil and Sessions Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Prakash Babu, an accused in a high-profile human trafficking and prostitution case registered by the HSR Layout Police. The court observed that an accused who has been intentionally absconding from the trial for over two years and avoiding Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
The order was delivered by Sri Manjunatha, the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, in the case registered as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 565/2023. The court emphasized that the legal remedy for an absconding accused against whom a charge sheet has already been filed is to surrender before the trial court rather than seeking protection from arrest.
Background of the Case and Allegations
The case against Prakash Babu dates back to an investigation initiated by Sri V. Munireddy, a Police Inspector at the HSR Layout Police Station. The respondent police had registered Crime No. 147/2020 against Babu and several others under the stringent provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITP Act), 1956, and Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the trafficking of persons.
According to the prosecution, the accused was allegedly involved in a prostitution racket that trafficked young women and induced them into the trade for wrongful financial gain within the jurisdiction of the HSR Layout Police. Following a comprehensive investigation, the police collected sufficient evidence to file a formal charge sheet against the petitioner and other accomplices before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
The Legal Battle for Anticipatory Bail
Prakash Babu, through his counsel Sri Shrinivas Kulkarni M., moved the sessions court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner claimed that he was entirely innocent of the charges and was being falsely implicated. He expressed a deep-seated apprehension of arrest by the HSR Layout Police following the filing of the charge sheet.
However, the Public Prosecutor filed a detailed objection, highlighting the petitioner’s conduct. The prosecution pointed out that Prakash Babu had been absconding since the registration of the case in 2021. Despite the court issuing Non-Bailable Warrants in the criminal case (CC No. 11361/2021) pending before the XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), the petitioner failed to appear.
The prosecution further revealed a startling fact: the petitioner had previously been granted anticipatory bail by the same court in October 2020 (Crl. Misc. No. 5557/2020). Despite receiving that protection, he failed to cooperate with the subsequent trial process and disappeared, leading to the current situation where fresh warrants were issued against him.
Court Observations on Absconding Accused
The court took a stern view of the petitioner’s two-year absence from the legal proceedings. Judge Manjunatha noted that the petitioner had full knowledge of the case but was intentionally avoiding the execution of the warrants issued by the jurisdictional court.
“Non-appearance of the petitioner causes hindrance in disposing of the pending criminal case and is a hurdle on the speedy disposal of the case,” the Judge remarked. The court found that there were no valid grounds provided in the petition to explain why the accused remained unavailable for trial for such an extended period.
The judge clarified that because the investigation was complete and a charge sheet had been filed, the police were duty-bound to arrest the accused to produce him before the trial court. Therefore, the “apprehension of arrest” claimed by the petitioner was a direct result of his own failure to surrender to the legal process.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents
In its detailed order, the Bengaluru court relied heavily on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India regarding absconders. The Judge cited the landmark judgment in Prem Shankar Prasad V. The State of Bihar, where the Apex Court held that when an accused is absconding and declared a proclaimed offender, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail.
The court also referenced the case of Lavesh V. State (NCT of Delhi), reiterating that a person against whom a warrant has been issued and who is concealing himself to avoid its execution is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Final Verdict and Dismissal
Concluding the proceedings, the court held that given the gravity and seriousness of the human trafficking allegations, combined with the petitioner’s history of avoiding trial, this was not a fit case for the exercise of judicial discretion.
The court stated that the only appropriate remedy for Prakash Babu is to surrender before the XXXVII ACMM Court, where the charge sheet is pending, and apply for regular bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed. This ruling paves the way for the HSR Layout Police to execute the pending Non-Bailable Warrant and bring the accused before the trial court to face the human trafficking charges.