Judgment:
ORDER
Jawad Rahim, J.
1. Petitioner is second accused in Cr. No. 34 of 2009 which is under investigation for offences punishable under Sections 366A and 120B of the IPC.
2. The said crime number came to be registered and is under investigation on the report of one Smt. B. Vasanthi W/o K.R. Krahnamurthy, Superintendent, Women and Child Welfare Department, Hosur Road, Bangalore. She reported that on 11.02.2009, kumari Mangala 11 years, kumari Eshwari 16 years, kumari Anjeb 17 years, kumari Soumya 14 years and kumari Qunavathi 15 years were missing from the Crisis Intervention Centre, Hosur Road, Bangalore between 6.15 and 6.30 p.m. On the basis of the report furnished by her, immediate action was taken. A search was launched for the missing girls. On 12 02.2009, further information was received that the four girls were traced in the house of accused No. 1 by name Gajendra Kumar Gowda @ G.K. Srinivas. Since the said accused resided in the jurisdiction of Yeklahanka New Town Police Station, the girls were rescued by the police officials and further statement was being recorded, in the meantime, one Kalyanakumari who was working in the Crisis Intervention Centre as Griha Matha was found to have colluded with the said Gajendra Kumar Gowda in kidnapping and abducting the girls. Therefore investigation was directed against her also. At that juncture, it was noticed that the girls were shown to haw run away from the said place, but it was found that they were abducted for prostitution and for sale after receiving considerable amount. The police officers in their relentless efforts were able to find the deep-rooted conspiracy between Gajendra Kumar Gowda, Soubhagyamma, w/o of Gajendra Kumar Gowda and accused No. 3 Kalyanakumari. The petitioner is none else than the wife of the first accused. On the basis of such material, the prosecution has been able to arrest the petitioner and the other two accused. The petitioner is thus before this Court seeking grant of bail.
3. The learned Counsel would contend that the petitioner is a housewife, innocent and knows nothing except that she had a very emotional feeling to take care of the girls brought by her husband. In other words, a plea of total ignorance is put forward about the incident. Learned Counsel would also contend that allegation of abduction and procuring the girls for prostitution and sale is attributed to accused No. 1 and Karyanakumari -accused No. 3. None of these arguments could find support from the material on record.
4. It is noticed from the prosecution papers that tour girls were found in the house of Gajendra Kumar Gowda, the first accused, the husband of the present petitioner. The petitioner Soubhagyamma was undoubtedly the woman in whose custody the four girls were found when they were traced by the Yelahanks police. The girls are of tender age between 11 and 17. The reading of the complaint and other investigation papers make out a very horrifying story of the whole episode. While these girls were sought to be kept in a place for destitute protection, the first accused has been abducting them with the help of accused No. 3 and accused No. 2, the present petitioner has actively connived with them in achieving the said object. Hardly any material is found which gives an iota of doubt about the veracity of the statement of the witnesses. The prosecution has made out a strong prima facie case against the petitioner and other accused. In tact, the manner in which the innocent girls have been abducted from the rescue home shows that they have landed from the pitiable condition to the worse condition and then exposed not only to flesh trade but the risk of their life. There can be no leniency in a matter like this even for grant of bail. I do not see any reason to exercise discretion under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Petition filed by the petitioner is therefore rejected.