Mariyapoor Shantha , Laxmi v. The State Of Telangana
HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY :PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1821 OF 2020 Between:
Mariyapoor Shantha @ Laxmi, Wo. Pandu, Petitioner/Accused No. I AND The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., P.S. Jeedimetla, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.
Respondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the grounds filed therein, the High Court may be pleased to grant bail to the petitioner/Accused No. l, in Crime No. 122 of 2020, of P.S. Jeedimetla, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District;
Counsel for the Petitioncr SRI K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following;
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO, 182 1 0F 2020 ORDER:
This is an application for regular bail. Petitioner is A- 1 in Crime No.122 of 2O2O of P.S. Jeedimetla, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner lA-l are under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956.
It is the allegation against the petitioner/A- 1 that she is indulging in immoral trafficking and she is the owner of the premises. A-2 is the customer. It is the further case of the prosecution that A-1 came to Hyderabad for livelihood and doing catering work. Under the guise of the said catering work, she has started the said immoral trafficking of women. She used to call the sex workers and customers on phone and used to collect Rs.1,O00/- to Rs.1,500/- from each customer and pay half of the amount to the sex workers. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on ll.O2.2O2O, L.W.1 came to her for doing prostitution, upon which she informed to A-2 about the availability of sex worker. A-2 came to the house of A- 1 , paid an amount of Rs. 1 ,200/ - and r',,en t with the sex worker.
The prosecution further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner/A- 1 is a professional and she is doing the said immoral acts professionally since long time. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A- 1 would submit that the petitioner/A- 1 was implicated in a false case. She has been doing catering business for her livelihood. She is having two daughters and one son. There is no other case against the petitioner/A-l except the present case.
) petitioner/A- 1 would further submit that the petitioner/A- 1 is in judicial custody since 1I.O2.2O2O. She is a woman and due to the judicial custody, the entire catering business came to be stalled and the family of the petitioner/A- I is suffering both financially and mentally.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the premises and she has been doing the said immoral activities professionally by calling the customers and sex workers to her premises and collecting money from the customers. He would further submit, on instructions, that there is no other case other than this case against the petitioner/A-1. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, some conditions may be imposed against the petitioner/A- I while granting the bail to avoid interference of the petitioner/A- 1 in investigation and to influence the witnesses. The above stated facts would clearly reveal that admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the premises. On 1 1.02.2020, she called L.W.
1 ar,d A-2 to do the above said illegal acts and the police apprehended both the accused including the sex worker red-handedly. The petitioner/A- 1 is in judicial custody from 11.O2.2O2O. Considering the fact that there is no other case other than this case against the petitioner/A- 1 and that she is in judicial custody from ll.O2.2O2O, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner/A- 1 on certain conditions. The Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner/A-1 shall be released on bail on the following terms and conditions: (i) That the petitioner/A-l shall execute a personal bond for Rs.
sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal; (ii) that the petitioner/A- 1 shall not interfere w'ith the investigation, directly or indirectly;
(iii) that the petitioner/A- I shall co-operate with the investigailng agency.
(iv) that the petitioner/A-1 shall personally appear before the Station House officer, Jeedimetal, P.S., on every Sundal, bet\^'een I O am and 5 pm till filing of final report/ charge sheet.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
5AILESHI N REG 5D/- K'
ASSIS ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER o T '1. Th. XIV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District' L'B' Nagar
2. The XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal'
3. The Station House officer, PS Jeedimetla, cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.
4. The Superintendent, State Jail for Women,' Chanchalguda, Hyderabad'
5. Two Cbs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad (OUT)
6. one CC to Sri K. Venumadhav, Advocate (OPUC)
7. one Spare CoPY \ N
j V s HIGH COURI KL ,l DATE: 20-03-2020
ORDER
CRL.P. NO. 1821 0F 2020 BAIL =:=>:- )Ltel c S(.
/';'"s r? 0 lrt [0 'i\ n