S.Shankar v. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on Page2 of 5

31.07.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections120-B, 342, 344, 370(3), 370A(2), 374, 506(i) read with 109 of IPC and Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act in Cr. No.24 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that A1 approached the defacto complainant, who is a dancer, for a dance show at Dubai and she agreed for the same and received money from A2 and A3 under an agreement for 3 months. While so, A5 to A7 forced the defacto complainant to dance in an indecent dressing and forced into prostitution. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent, he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner is under incarceration since 31.07.2025 and the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and hence prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed to enlarge the petitioner on bail by stating that totally there are 7 accused in this case and the petitioner along with other accused has involved in immoral activities and if he is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of absconding. Page3 of 5

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6The learned Government Advocate strongly opposed to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the sole ground that with great difficulty, they secured the petitioner. In this case, FIR was registered on 29.05.2024 and only after issuing Look Out Circular, the petitioner could be secured on 31.07.2025. He would further submit that this is a case of human trafficking and the accused forced a woman into prostitution. From the above submissions, it is amply clear that this petitioner is a person of flight risk. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations and its societal impact, though the co-accused were released on bail, this Court is not in a position to enlarge the petitioner on bail, on the sole ground that there is every possibility of absconding.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 13-03-2026 MJS Page4 of 5 Note:

¶1Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶2All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. To

¶1The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Immoral Traffic Prevention Unit-1, Anti Vice Squad, Egmore, Chennai. CRLoOPoNo.o4796oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. MJS CRLoOPoNo.o4796oofo2026 13-03-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN S.Shankar S/O Selladurai, 6/184C-6/284C, Nethaji Nagar, Trichy Road, Vasanthapuram, Namakkal. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State represented by: The Inspector Of Police Immoral Traffic Prevention Unit-1, Anti Vice Squad, Egmore, Chennai. Crime No.24 of 2024. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. praying to grant bail to the petitioner in the above case in Crime No.24/2024 on the file of the respondent police herein. For Petitioner(s): Ms. Ilayarani Ponraj For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal side)