Sangeetha @Mahalakshmi v. Inspector Of Police

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

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) of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, in Crime No. 22 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused were found to be involved in immoral trafficking activities in the house owned by the petitioner. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and a false complaint has been given against the petitioner. He would further submit that other than being the owner of the premises, the petitioner has no involvement in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner along with other accused were found to be involved in immoral trafficking activities in the house of the petitioner by engaging two victims and indulged them in prostitution. He would further submit that the victims have been secured by the respondent and they were sent to home. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the specific overt act against the petitioner that she is running a prostitution centre by engaging two victims in her house, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is dismissed.

11.08.2023 ata

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN , J.

ata 11.08.2023