Ashok Rai vs State

Budihal R.B, J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner-accused No. 2 u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 370(3), 370A, 294, 109 of IPC and Sec. 35 of Excise Act registered in the respondent-police station Crime No. 611/2013.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 2 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

The learned counsel for petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that in this case Section 188, 370(3) and 370A are not at all attracted to the case on hand. He made submission that admittedly no case has been registered under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. He also submitted that the present petitioner is not the owner of the building but on the date of the alleged incident he was not at all at the spot, not present in the said Bar and Restaurant and he was at Dharmastala. Counsel submitted that he has entered into lease agreement giving the Bar and Restaurant to the other persons, but learned Sessions Judge wrongly observed in the bail order while rejecting the said document is not a registered and hence it cannot be looked into. Counsel made the submission that looking to the FIR, age of the victim girl shown is of the age of majority and no girls are under the age of 18 years. He also submitted that prosecution materials itself goes to show the victim girl brought to the said bar by one Radha Krishna, the accused and not by the present petitioner. He also made submission that the Manager of the Bar and Restaurant who was alleged to have present at the time of the said raid and arrested, has been granted bail by the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, counsel made the submission in view of these submissions and as the petitioner is innocent and not involved in the crime to the alleged offences, he may be enlarged on bail. He is ready to co-operate with the investigating machinery. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ramakrishna Reddy vs. State by Sanjanagar Police, Bangalore reported in 2013 (2) KLJ 459.

As against this the learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State during the course of his arguments submitted that the allegations in the complaint and also the statement of the victim girl which were received by the raiding party and recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation goes to show that they were brought to the said Bar and Restaurant by one Radhakrishna promising that they will be paid good salary for serving liquor to the customers coming to the Bar and Restaurant. He made submission that statement of the victim girls also goes to show that they were not entrusted with the work of supplying drinks to the customers coming to the Bar and Restaurant but they were asked to dance in the obscene dress, giving provocation to the sex feelings and thereby they have been exploited by the accused persons. Hence, he made submission statement of the victim girls, prima facie, goes to show that they have been exploited in the said Bar and Restaurant and the matter is under investigation and petitioner is not at all available to the Investigating Officer. Hence at this stage petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and order passed by the Lower Court on the bail application and I have also perused the other materials produced along with the petition. Looking to the material on record the prosecution materials goes to show that the present petitioner is the owner of the building. So far as the grant of licence to run the Bar and Restaurant, there is mention that present petitioner is having the said document, but the complaint allegations that the said activities are going on in violation of the Government Order issued in GO No. HO 357 SSJ 2010 dated 06.07.2013. Hence, the materials prima facie goes to show that the activities in the Bar and Restaurant are against the said Government Order. Hence, the materials, prima facie, goes to show that though the competent authority issued license for running Bar and Restaurant but question is what are the activities going on in the said Bar and Restaurant and for which purpose license is granted. For this, statement of witnesses, prima facie, goes to show that they have been used and exploited to dance in the presence of the customers coming to the said Bar and Restaurant, the materials are also goes to show that mikes were fixed and lights were also put in the said room leaving the space in the middle for dance. These are the materials collected during the investigation by the raiding party.

Therefore, at this stage the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that no such activities were going on and the present petitioner is not present not responsible for the alleged act in the complaint as well as statement of witnesses, cannot be accepted as the investigation is still in progress and charge sheet is required to be filed before court. Looking to these materials, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is rejected. However, the observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition.