Judgment :- Apprehending his arrest by the respondent-Sanjaynagar police in connection with the case registered in Crime No.417/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the petitioner arraigned as accused No.1 has presented this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking relief of anticipatory bail. 2. The petition is opposed by respondent-State. 3. I have heard both the sides and perused the records made available. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.1 in the aforesaid case registered by the respondent-police for non bailable offences. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that he is likely to be arrested in connection with the said case is well founded. 5. According to the case of the prosecution, on 03.12.2012 at about 11.00 a.m., the Officer in charge of Sanjaynagar police station received credible information about immoral activities going on in Mayuri Guest House situated near RMV Club, II Stage, RMV, Bangalore. With the permission of ACP., he conducted a raid on the said guest house and at the time of the raid, he apprehended accused No.2 Kanal Singh, Accused No.3 Kiran Kumar who are pimps and accused Nos.4 to 6 who were found indulged in immoral activity in the said guest house. On interrogation, accused No.2 said to have disclosed that this petitioner has let out the guest house to him on daily rent basis to run prostitution. On that basis, petitioner was arraigned as accused No.1 and on the report of the Police Sub-Inspector., the case came to be registered and investigation was taken. 6. As noticed supra, even according to the complaint allegations, this petitioner was not found at the guest house nor he was party to run the alleged immoral activity in the guest house. The petitioner alleged to have let out the guest house to accused Nos.1 and 2 on daily rent basis. At this stage, there are no grounds to indicate the complicity of the accused No.1 for the alleged incident. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. 7. Hence the petition is allowed. The petitioner alleged to have let out the guest house to accused Nos.1 and 2 on daily rent basis. At this stage, there are no grounds to indicate the complicity of the accused No.1 for the alleged incident. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. 7. Hence the petition is allowed. The respondent -police are hereby directed to release the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with the case in Crime No.417/2012 on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and subject to further conditions that, (i) Upon such arrest and release, the petitioner for the purpose of investigation shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon to do so and co-operate in the investigation of the case. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case.