ASHOK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge at Gadag, by an Order dated 27.05.2016 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 89/2016, having dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed, this petition was filed to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are, that the Gadag Town Police have registered a case in Crime No. 941 2016 against the petitioners, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), on the basis of a complaint lodged on 28.04.2016 by Mr. Nagaraj M. Madalli, CPI and Spl. Officer under the Act. It was stated in the complaint, that on 28.04.2016, at 4.00 p.m., when the complainant was in the Office, he received information about the immoral trafficking in Lakshmi Lodge, Gadag, wherein 3 to 4 women having been kept for doing immoral trafficking in customers in the lodge. The complainant, accompanied by his staff, having secured panchas, rushed to the lodge and watched the activities of the lodge by standing at a distance and on seeing the police, two members of the lodge having ran away from the spot and an attempt made to catch them having gone in vain, the police searched the lodge and found four women at that place, and on enquiry, the women told that they were brought to lodge for prostitution purpose etc.; that the police seized the articles found therein, under a panchanama and 1 thereafter, complaint was lodged against the petitioners, who are the Owner and the Manager respectively of Lakshmi Lodge. Apprehending arrest, Sessions Judge was approached for grant of anticipatory bail. The petition having been opposed on the ground that the offences alleged against the accused is not only against individual person(s) but also against the society and the lodge being situated in central part of Gadag City, the bail if granted would nothing but be encouragement given and it would affect the surrounding environment, the bail was refused.

(3.) Sri. Anjaneya M., learned advocate, firstly contended that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and the petitioners being law abiding citizens, their reputation is at stake, as the petitioners' names have been shown in FIR with an intention to humiliate, embarrass and defame them in the eyes of public. Secondly, there is false implication of petitioners and the allegations made is totally baseless. Thirdly, the alleged offences being not punishable with death or life imprisonment and the petitioners not having any criminal background, if apprehended by the police, would cause untold misery to them and hardship to their families. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigation Officer and undertake to scrupulously abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Court for enlarging them on bail.