Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Ashok and Naveen, filed a criminal petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.94/2016 registered by Gadag Town Police for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. The case arose from a complaint lodged on 28 April 2016 by Mr. Nagaraj M. Madalli, CPI and Special Officer under the Act, alleging that on the same day at 4:00 p.m., he received information about immoral trafficking at Lakshmi Lodge, Gadag, where 3 to 4 women were kept for prostitution. The complainant and his staff conducted a raid and allegedly found the petitioners involved in the trafficking. The Additional District and Sessions Judge at Gadag dismissed the anticipatory bail petition on 27 May 2016, leading to the present petition. The High Court observed that the petitioners were not the owners of the lodge and that no recovery was made from them. The court held that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioners and that custodial interrogation was not required. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, including that the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days and execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Grant of Bail - Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in Crime No.94/2016 for offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 - The court found no prima facie case against the petitioners as they were not the owners of the lodge and no recovery was made from them - Held that custodial interrogation was not required and granted anticipatory bail with conditions (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The petitioners are granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions: they shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days and execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail
- prima facie case
- Immoral Traffic Prevention Act
- Sections 3 and 5
- custodial interrogation not required
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (07) 15
Criminal Petition No.100584/2016
Sri Anjaneya M. Adv. (for petitioners), Sri Praveen K. Uppar, HCGP (for respondent)
Ashok S/o Yogendragouda and Naveen S/o Vishnu Naik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought enlargement on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.94/2016.
Filing Reason
The Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail petition on 27.05.2016.
Previous Decisions
The Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge at Gadag dismissed Crl. Misc. No.89/2016 on 27.05.2016.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they are not the owners of the lodge and no recovery was made from them.
State opposed the bail application.
Ratio Decidendi
No prima facie case is made out against the petitioners as they are not the owners of the lodge and no recovery was made from them. Custodial interrogation is not required.
Judgment Excerpts
The Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge at Gadag, by an Order dated 27.05.2016 passed in Crl. Misc. No.89/2016, having dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed, this petition was filed to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are, that the Gadag Town Police have registered a case in Crime No.94/2016 against the petitioners, for the offences punishable under Ss. 3 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956...
In the facts and circumstances of the case, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. They are not the owners of the lodge. No recovery is made from them. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required.
Procedural History
The Gadag Town Police registered Crime No.94/2016 on 28.04.2016. The petitioners filed Crl. Misc. No.89/2016 before the Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge at Gadag, which was dismissed on 27.05.2016. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Petition No.100584/2016 before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which was allowed on 08.07.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956: 3, 5
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 438
