1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2390/2009 Ravindra S.Shetty Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.A.P.Pande for the applicant Mr.S.R.Shinde,APP for the State CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. (VACATION COURT) DATE : 26h MAY,2009. P.C. . This application is moved for anticipatory bail against the order passed by the Sessions Court dated 15/4/2009. The offence is registered against the applicant/accused (for short applicant) under sections 3,4,5,7 (1)(b) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)Act ,1956 under C.R.No.23/2008. 2] Read order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The offence was registered on 29/4/2008 when the police raided the hotel owned by the applicant and they found illegal activities of prostitution were going on in the said hotel. It appears from the record that the applicant since then was not available to the police and he was absconding. 2 3] It is to be mentioned that the police should have taken necessary steps to arrest the accused if he is not traceable. It was also necessary for the prosecution to place an application seeking presence of the applicant in the Court at the time of final hearing of the anticipatory bail application. The record shows that the order rejecting anticipatory bail application was passed on 15/4/2009 by the Sessions Court. However, no such application and efforts were made to seek presence of the applicant and arrest the applicant . 4] It is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the applicant is the owner of the hotel and the illegal activities were within his knowledge. It is further argued that the brother of the applicant was running the business and as per section 3 of the Act the person who is owner of the premises is also an offender. 5] In the application it is contended and also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the applicant was at his native place and was not aware of any such raid or registration of offence against him is falsely involved in the said crime. 3 6] There is nothing to show on the record that the applicant himself was running the hotel or had any knowledge of the illegal activities as such prostitution in the premises. The applicant is running a banking training center at Lalbaug, Mumbai. He is also the owner of the hotel at Turbhe and is permanent resident of Mumbai. The explanation of learned counsel for the applicant that , he did not make application for anticipatory bail earlier because he was not aware of such prosecution against him , appears convincing . There was no impediment to make application for anticipatory bail earlier. This delay appears consistent with his contention of having no knowledge of the registration of offence against him. Further it appears from record that there is no direct evidence against him. 7] Hence it is a fit case in which the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. O R D E R In the event of the arrest the applicant be released on his furnishing bail of Rs.30,000/- with one local surety in the like amount. The applicant is directed to co-operate with the investigating agency and not to tamper the prosecution 4 evidence and the witness. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court . (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)