J.Manoj Kumar v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police
CRL OP NO. 948 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-01-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP NO. 948 of 2025 J.Manoj Kumar S/o.Jayavel, 1g, 28th Street, C.Sector, Railway Carshed Complex, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District. Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police Anti-vice Squad-1, Ccb, Chennai.
Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): M/s. R.Pushpalatha For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Santhosh,Government Advocate (Criminal Side).
ORDER
When the matter is taken up today for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that this petitioner had already obtained anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.25420 of 2024, dated 23.10.2024. However, the petitioner failed to surrender and execute the bond, resulting in the lapse of the said order copy. Consequently, the petitioner has filed the present anticipatory bail petition.
2. In view of the above, this Court grants the same order that has already been passed by this Court, which reads as follows: - "The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a), 6(1) and 7(1) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, in Crime No.35 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent has received an information that the petitioner along with the other person involved in immoral traffic activities in an apartment at Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai, and confined the victim girl in a room and forced the victim girl to involve the immoral traffic activities against her willingness. Based on the secret information, the respondent went to the place of occurrence and secured the victim girls and registered the case against the accused. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner is only the owner of the apartment and he did not aware of the alleged offence committed by the other accused. He would further
submit that A2 was arrested and released on bail. He would also submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner along with the other accused were found in indulging immoral trafficking act. He would further submit that there is one previous case against the petitioner similar in nature. He would further submit that A2 was arrested and released on bail. However, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the nature of offences charged against the petitioner and co-accused was already released on bail and that though the petitioner is having one previous case, he was granted bail in that case and considering all other aspects, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail
in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that: [a] the petitioner shall report before B-1, Sivakanchi Police Station, Kanchipuram, daily at 10.30 a.m, until further orders;
[b] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
[c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during the investigation or during the trial;
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions
have been imposed and the petitioner was released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
[f] If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S."
3. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is ordered. 22-01-2025 klt To
1. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police Anti-vice Squad-1, Ccb, Chennai.
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
klt CRL OP NO. 948 of 2025 22.01.2025