1. 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.

2. 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 (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 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 persons 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 cooperate 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.

4. Sri Praveen K. Uppar, learned HCGP, on the other hand, submitted that criminal case having been registered against the petitioners, Investigation Officer has recorded the statements of four women, who were found in the Lodge and their statements categorically show that they were brought by the petitioners for the purpose of prostitution and if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every chance of the petitioners committing similar heinous offences. Learned counsel submitted that the offences made out against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years and since the investigation being still pending, if the petitioners, required for custodial interrogation, are released on bail, they may tamper the witnesses by threatening them and hamper the prosecution agency and may also abscond from the clutches of law.

5. Considered the submissions made by the learned advocates and perused the record.

6. S.438 Cr.P.C. provides guidelines in the matter of consideration of anticipatory bail application. The Court has to consider (i) nature and gravity of accusation (ii) the antecedents of t