1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6023 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SRI RAFIQUL ISLAM

S/O SRI MAISON ALI

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

PRESENTLY R/O BROTHERS BAKERY

BEHIND VOTER CIRCLE

WHITEFIELD

BENGALURU – 560 083

PERMANENT ADDRESS:

GARAKHAT, P.S – DALGOAN

SUB DIVISION MANGALDOL

DARRANG DISTRICT

ASSAM – 784 116

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI: BASAWA PRASAD KUNALE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION

REPRESENTED BY HCGP

… RESPONDENT

(BY SMT: RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439

OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN

2

CR.NO.120/2021

REGISTERED

BY

WHITEFIELD

POLICE

STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER

SECTION 370 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 5 OF

I.T.P ACT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court

seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime

No.120/2021 of Whitefield Police Station, registered for the

offences punishable under Section 370 of the Indian Penal

Code (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the

Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (for short ‘ITP’ Act) on the

basis of the first information lodged by the informant-W

Keerthi Lakshmi.

2.

Heard Sri Basawa Prasad Kunale, learned

Counsel for the petitioner and Smt Rashmi Jadhav, learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State.

Perused the materials on record.

3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. He is

3

innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed

any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in

the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on

31.05.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. No

FIR was registered before holding raid on the house of the

petitioner. It is stated that one girl was rescued from the

said place. The victim has not supported the case of

prosecution. She is said to be a consenting party and was

residing

in

the

house

of

petitioner.

Under

such

circumstances, no offence is made out. The investigation is

almost completed. The petitioner is not having criminal

antecedents. The petitioner is the permanent resident of

Assam State. He is ready and willing to abide by any of

the conditions that would be imposed by this Court.

Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

4.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious

allegations are made against the petitioner for having

committed the offences. The petitioner is basically from

4

Assam State. He is running the brothel house in his own

house. He is trafficking the girls from Bangladesh. The

investigation is undertaken and charge sheet is not yet

filed. The petitioner is not having address proof. Looking

to the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner is not

entitled for grant of bail. Hence, she prays for dismissal of

the petition.

5.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

“Whether

the

petitioner

is

entitled for grant of bail under Section

439 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the

following:

R E A S O N S

6.

The materials on record discloses that serious

allegations are made against the petitioner for having

committed the offences. Even though, no FIR was

5

registered before holding raid on the house of the

petitioner, it is stated that the informant had received

credible information regarding running of brothel house

and it is suspected that the petitioner may abscond, if

there is any loss of time. The said explanation a