Ganesan v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Ganesan Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police V-3 JJ Nagar Police Station, Mogappair East, Chennai - 37. (Crime No.552/2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory Bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.552 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):

Arikarasudan M For Respondent(s):

Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), and 5(1)(a) of

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred as ITP Act) in Crime No.552 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The allegation against the petitioner is that he is involved in running a brothel house by forcing four victims and during a patrol duty of the respondent, they received information, and after satisfying themselves, based on the special report search was conducted and the victims are secured. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though this Court has dismissed the earlier bail applications twice, in this petition, he has raised the ground that since Section 15 of the ITP Act, mandates that only the officer competent alone is entitled to search the premises.

In this case, the premises was visited by the constable, hence Section 15 is violated and he further submitted that there are statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein there is no incriminating statements were recorded by the victims in this case. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.I have also gone through Section 15 of ITP Act and it revealed that if any search is being taken place it has to be carried out by the competent officer stated in the Section 15. Whereas on perusal of the FIR it was not a search. The constable attached with police station have been invited for involving himself in the brothel activities, hence he visited the brothel house and confirming himself and he informed the respondent and lodged a special report.

FIR was registered and thereafter search and rescue operation were conducted by the competent officers. Hence, the contention that Section 15 is violated is not made out in this case. Apart from that it is also stated by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) that so far Section Section 164 Crl.P.C statement were not recorded and Section 161 Cr.P.C statement has already been recorded. This Court has earlier perused the Section 161 statement and found that petitioner has also actively participated in the offence. Hence, there is no change in circumstances, to reconsider the earlier order. 5.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 15-12-2025 gbi Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police V-3 JJ Nagar Police Station, Mogappair East, Chennai - 37. (Crime No.552/2025) 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

gbi CRL OP No. 34178 of 15-12-2025