Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 653 (KAR)

Mangala Hareesh v. State of Karnataka

2022-05-24

H.P.SANDESH

body2022
ORDER : H.P. Sandesh, J. 1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No. 79/2022 of Govindaraja Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Section 370 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on credible information, raid was conducted and this petitioner was apprehended and victims were rescued. This petitioner was working in the said Spa and mobile phones, cash of Rs. 1,400/-, paytm card and also two phone pay scanners were seized. The owner of the Spa is absconding and hence invoked the offence under Section 370 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only an employee and he was engaged in giving service to the customer limited to hair cut and style and not doing any cross massage as alleged in the complaint and he being an employee he was discharging his duties and eking out his livelihood and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that one Sri Chethan Kumar was running the Spa and the petitioner being an employee was indulged in such acts. The police have registered the case led by squad of ACP office and hence there is a prima facie material against the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and on perusal of the material available on record, the allegation against this petitioner is that he is an employee of the Spa and he indulged in doing cross massage. Having taken note of that this petitioner is an employee and not the owner of the Spa in which the alleged offences are committed, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner with conditions. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 79/2022 of Govindaraja Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Section 370 of IPC, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.