IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6044 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.73/2008 OF CHEEMENI POLICE STATION PETITIONER/8TH ACCUSED:- -------------------------------------------- C.SIDDEK, S/O C. MOHAMMED, KOLIKATTA HOUSE, CHERKALA, CHENGALA P.O., KASARGODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINT/STATE:- -------------------------------- 1. ASST. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHEEMENI POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6044 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, A1 to A4 were found in a compromising position in the house of A1 and they were arrested from the spot. A5 to A7 were also present there and they were also arrested. A8 ran away from the scene and he could not be arrested. He is the petitioner herein. The incident occurred on 24.8.2008 at 8 p.m. The crime was registered under Sections 3 and 5 of ITP Act. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that according to prosecution, petitioner was only present at the house. That does not mean that petitioner committed any offence. His presence alone will not constitute any offence because he could have gone to the house for various other purposes, it is submitted. Section 3 of ITP Act will lie only against first accused because running a brothel is punishable under Section 3. But, offence is under Section 5 will be made BA No.6044/2008 2 out, if woman is procured or taken for the purpose of prostitution, for which there must be evidence. There is no evidence to connect petitioner with such offence. Hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that petitioner was found in a brothel and there is no case for petitioner that he had gone there for any particular purpose. The case is under investigation. The presence of A8 at scene is revealed from evidence collected. His explanation will not absolve him from criminal liability, it is submitted. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner has only stated that he “could have gone” to a place for various other purposes. His purpose of visit is a matter of investigation by the police. Petitioner has to be interrogated to ascertain materials which are within his exclusive knowledge and to find out whether he had committed any offence under the ITP Act. Considering nature of allegations made, in the absence of any specific defence or any other special circumstance warranting grant of the relief under Section 438 Crl.P.C., it is not a fit case BA No.6044/2008 3 to grant anticipatory bail. The incident occurred as early as on 24.8.2008 and petitioner was not available for investigation for the past about two months. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. This direction will not stand in the way of effecting arrest of petitioner by police. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl