abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 60 OF 2008 Yeshwant Takaji Kangne .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.A.P. Mundargi i/b Mr.S.V. Marwadi for the applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with an offence registered by Mira Road Police Station under C.R. No.124/2007 punishable under section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Subsequently the offence under sections 372 and 373 of the Indian Penal Code is also sought to be added. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 27th October 2007 on the basis of a prior information, the - 2 - police sent bogus customers in Om Sai Lodge. Thereafter, the police conducted raid and found that illegal prostitution was going on in the said lodge. The persons found in the lodge and involved in the offence were arrested. The applicant is stated to be the owner of the lodge and is sought to be arrested in connection with the said offence. 3. Undoubtedly, the lodging license stands in the name of the applicant. However, by an agreement of leave and license dated 2nd April 2007, the applicant had given the said lodge for conducting to one Byas Pandey. The agreement was notarised by one S.P. Saundattikar, Advocate and Notary at Serial No.4072/07 on the same day, i.e. on 2nd April 2007. This agreement prima facie shows that the applicant was not the conductor of the lodge but had given it for conducting to Byas Pandey. Though more than 4 months have passed since the raid, no material is obtained by the police to show that the applicant was actually the conductor of the lodge. 4. The applicant had previously made an application before the Sessions Court. At that time, an objection was raised that the agreement dated 2nd April 2007, though notarised on the same day before a Notary, was - 3 - not registered under the Indian Registration Act. It was further contended that the agreement was required to be registered by virtue of Maharashtra Rent Control Act and therefore the agreement was inadmissible in evidence. In view of the objection, another agreement was executed by the applicant with Byas Pandey on 15th November 2007 and the same was registered. The second agreement refers to the previous agreement dated 2nd April 2007 and further states that fresh agreement was executed since the old could not be registered as the period for registration was over. The agreement was with retrospective effect and was in confirmation of the previous agreement dated 2nd April 2007. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant inter alia on the ground that execution of the second agreement was subsequent to the raid. In my view, the learned Judge has lost sight of the fact that it was not an independent agreement but it was an agreement for confirmation of the previous unregistered agreement dated 2nd April 2007. The execution of the previous agreement dated 2nd April 2007 is not disputed. It is only submitted by the A.P.P. that being unregistered agreement, it is not admissible in evidence. That is a question which would have to be decided at trial. The fact remains that the applicant was not actually - 4 - conducting the lodge but it was Byas Pandey who was conducting the lodge. 5. It is worthy to note that though the copies of the agreements were produced before the Sessions Court, the police have not arrested the actual conductor of the lodge, Byas Pandey, so far. In the circumstances, in my view, the applicant is entitled to conditional pre-arrest bail. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER ORDER ORDER In the event of the arrest of the applicant in connection with the offence mentioned above, he be released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the aggregate amount of Rs.20,000/- subject to the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the concerned police station. (b) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station once a week on every Monday between 5.00 and 7.00 p.m. and also on such other dates as may be - 5 - specifically summoned by the police. (d) This order shall come to an end after the charge sheet is filed whereupon the applicant may apply for regular bail before the regular court. If such application is made, it shall be considered on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. . Application is disposed of. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)