Karthick v. The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Ninth day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.12845 of 2022 1 KARTHICK [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 SHALEEL Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [ RESPONDENT ] VADAVALLI POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT (CRIME NO.324/2022) For Petitioner : M/S W.CAMYLES GANDHI Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.DAMODARAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(a), 3(2)(b), 4(2)(b), 4(2)(c) & 5(1)(d) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 in Crime No. 324 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant with his friend, while going on the road near Siruvani Road, Sivagami Nagar, Diamond Wellness Centre, the petitioners approached the defacto complainant and his friend proposed an offer that they are having girls from Coimbatore and Tanjore and running the centre accommodation and in the event of paying Rs.2,000/- that they will be permitted to enjoy the said accommodation. Pursuant to that the defacto complainant went into the said wellness centre and seen some girls dressed in indecent manner standing in front of them. The defacto complainant and his friend shocked to see that instance and said some reasons to them and went out from the said premises and lodged a complaint before the respondent police. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 1st petitioner is the owner of the Wellness Centre and running the same after obtaining necessary permission from the authorities. He further submitted that the respondent police foisted a case against the petitioners. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are totally two accused involved in this case. The petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2. The 1st accused is running Spa in the name and style of the Diamond Wellness Centre and the 2nd accused is the Manager of the said centre. He further submitted that three victim girls were secured from the above said Centre and they were sent to home. He would also submit that there are no previous case pending against the petitioners. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5.Taking into consideration of the bad antecedents on the petitioners and also the custodial interrogation is very much required, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 09/06/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAVALLI POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S W.CAMYLES GANDHI Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.12845/2022 Date :09/06/2022 RW-22/06/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/