Since there is no specific allegation, hence bail is to be granted to the receptionist of the hotel used as a brothel: Karnataka High Court
The decision that due to absence of any specific allegation, bail is to be granted to a accused who worked as a receptionist at a hotel that was allegedly used as a brothel is upheld by the High Court of Karnataka through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH in the case of PRAKASH SHARMA VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA (CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4281 OF 2022).
FACTS OF THE CASE– The petitioner in the present case and the accused No.2 both of them secured CWs.4 and 5 stating that they would get the job and also persuaded them that they are going to give more amount. The accused No.2 used to contact customers over the phone and indulged CWs.4 and 5 for prostitution. Both used to collect money from the same. Based on information, a raid was conducted and the fact that a brothel was running in Berry’s hotel came to limelight. Thus, the petitioner was also taken into custody. As a result, the police have filed a complaint against the petitioner and other defendants. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail for the petitioner in Marathahalli Police Station Crime No.40/2022 for offences punishable under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.
The counsel for Petitioner argued that the complaint itself reveals that he worked as a hotel receptionist, and that the specific allegation against accused No. 2 that he was running a brothel and that he used to contact customers is made only against him. It was contended that the petitioner was only hired by the hotel and that CWs.4 and 5, who are victims, make no particular complaints against him.
The counsel for respondent, on the other hand, objected to the plea, claiming that the Petitioner was arranging for the victims to be subjected to sexual acts, and that while the allegation was made against accused No. 2, the Petitioner was assisting accused No. 2 in running the brothel, and that there was a prima facie case against him.
The court observed that the petitioner was employed as a receptionist at the hotel, and only accused No. 2 was charged with obtaining customer. In fact, the victims who were rescued from the hotel submitted statements against just accused No. 2. The petitioner is not accused of anything specific.
JUDGEMENT– Bail was granted to the petitioner on the ground that there was no specific allegation against the petitioner. The petition was allowed.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY- ATIVA GOSWAMI