The court emphasized that a prima facie case must be established by the prosecution for bail to be denied, and reasonable doubt about the allegations can lead to granting bail.

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. This petition is preferred to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.3 on bail in Crime No.378/2024 of H.S.R. Layout Police Station, Bengaluru. Aforementioned crime was registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 , 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 , Sections 8 , 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 .

3. Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 , 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 , under Section 143(2) of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and under Sections 4 , 6, 8, 16 and 18 of POCSO Act, 2012

4. In the charge sheet, petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3, he was arrested on 16.10.2024 and in judicial custody since then.

5. Briefly stated, it is the case of prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 were running a brothel in house No.454/A, 3^rd Floor, Narayananamma B.V. Yadav house, Sector-3, HSR Layout, Bengaluru city and that they have procured a minor girl of Bangladesh origin and conducting prostitution in said house. It is the further case of the prosecution that on receiving a credible information, the CCB Police conducted a raid in the said house and found that petitioner/ accused No.3 was present along with the minor victim and accused No.4 being the aunt of the minor victim was also involved in the offence.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has opposed the prayer for bail contending that the offence committed is heinous in nature, wherein, the petitioner has committed a heinous act against a minor victim aged only 15 years. She contended, as per the FSL report, seminal stains were noticed on the articles that were seized etc and therefore, there is a prime-facie case against the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 contended that victim has given a statement naming the petitioner and therefore, there is a prime-facie case against the petitioner for committing a heinous offence. He further contended that in view of the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in the case ofAbhijith Vs. State of Kerala in Crl.R.P.No.1208/2023 disposed of on 21.12.2023, a customer also come within the purview of Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 . He therefore contended that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of bail.

8. I have perused the statement of victim recorded on 18.10.2024, as per which, the Police conducted a raid on 16.10.2024 and arrested the petitioner who was present in the house along with her.

9. It is the specific case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 were running a brothel in a rented house and upon receiving a credible information, CCB police conducted a raid on the night intervening 15.10.2024 and 16.10.2024 and arrested accused Nos.1 to 3 and rescued the victim girl.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the Medical Examination Report of the victim and history furnished therein. As per which, sexual intercourse was committed on the victim about three days back i.e, on 13.10.2024 by an unknown. If the said document is taken into consideration, at this stage a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the Court about the allegations made against the petitioner that he was present in the house on 16.10.2024 along with the victim. It is not stated while furnishing history by the victim that she was subjected to sexual assault on the said day of raid.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has contended that the petitioner is a resident of the State of Rajasthan and therefore, if he is enlarged on bail, there are chances of absconding.

12. Prosecution has to establish the case against the petitioner during trial. Peti