Prakash v. The Inspector Of Police

RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.

The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 in Crime No.167 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner is the owner and running spa in the name and style of 'Bavya Sri Unisex Beauty Care & Spa'. On 29.05.2023, on the receipt of secret information received by the respondent they formed a team and went to the petitioner's spa. After completion of all formalities the police went inside the spa and saw the Manager along with two girls, on enquiry A1 reveals that he is the owner of the spa and on his direction, two girls are doing brothel. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has no knowledge about the occurrence taken place in his spa. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to 1/3

the petitioner.

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J., 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner has got two similar cases and he is the owner of spa and the above said complaint is under investigation. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) and perused the materials available on record.

6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the nature of offence committed by the petitioner and the investigation is at nascent stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 10.08.2023 nvi 2/3

3/3