Varsha vs State Rep By, The Sub-Inspector Of Police

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.08.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of ITP Act, in Crime No.653 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The allegation against the petitioner is that based on secret information, when the respondent police entered into a house on 05.08.2026, wherein they found that the petitioner was running a prostitution involving a victim woman. The victim was subsequently rescued, resulting in the registration of the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the building and that she has no way connected with the respondent police. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner has no previous cases pending against him and that the mobile phone was also seized from the petitioner. However, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.

I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the nature of the allegations, the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has no previous case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamali and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in acc with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.