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