Cri. Appln. Nos. 2861 to 2867/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2861 OF 2011 Sunil @ Sandip s/o. Manik Shelke, R/o. Newasa Road, Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2862 OF 2011 1. Pradeep Rupchand Muswat, 2. Sunil @ Sandip s/o. Manik Shelke, Both R/o. Newasa Road, Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2863 OF 2011 1. Pradeep Rupchand Muswat, 2. Sunil @ Sandip s/o. Manik Shelke, Both R/o. Newasa Road, Shevgaon, Cri. Appln. Nos. 2861 to 2867/11 2 Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2864 OF 2011 1. Pradeep Rupchand Muswat, 2. Sunil @ Sandip s/o. Manik Shelke, Both R/o. Newasa Road, Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2865 OF 2011 1. Pradeep Rupchand Muswat, 2. Sunil @ Sandip s/o. Manik Shelke, Both R/o. Newasa Road, Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Cri. Appln. Nos. 2861 to 2867/11 3 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2866 OF 2011 1. Pradeep Rupchand Muswat, 2. Sunil @ Sandip s/o. Manik Shelke, Both R/o. Newasa Road, Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2867 OF 2011 1. Pradeep Rupchand Muswat, 2. Sunil @ Sandip s/o. Manik Shelke, Both R/o. Newasa Road, Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for applicants in all applications. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for State/respondent in all applications. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 22th July, 2011. Cri. Appln. Nos. 2861 to 2867/11 4 ORDER : 1. All the applications are filed for anticipatory bail. Criminal Application No. 2861/2011 is filed by one Sunil Shelke in Cr. No. 73/11 registered in Shevgaon Police Station, District Ahmednagar for offences punishable under sections 376, 344, 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and also for offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ( PITA Act ). In this crime Pradeep Rupchand Muswat had applied for regular bail and his Criminal Application No. 2204/2011 is rejected by this Court on merits. 2. The remaining Criminal Application Nos. 2862, 2863, 2864, 2865, 2866 and 2867 of 2011 are filed by both Shelke and Muswat in Cr. Nos. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79 of 2011, respectively, registered for similar offences in the same police station. 3. All the crimes are registered on the basis of reports given by some girls. They have made allegations that in the past, they were arrested in PITA case [ in Cr. No. 7/2011 registered in the same police station ] along with the present applicants and they were granted bail. It is their case that Pradeep Muswat had helped them to get bail and he had spent for that. They have contended that Cri. Appln. Nos. 2861 to 2867/11 5 after their release on bail, Pradeep Muswat brought them to brothel house, where the raid was effected in the present cases. They have made allegations that by saying that he had spent Rs. 20,000/- as against each girl for getting bail, he detained them in brothel house and each girl was locked in a separate room. They have made allegations that Pradeep Muswat and Sunil Shelke used to take 50% of their income and they were not allowing them to leave the building and this way, they were detained in the building from 25.3.2011 to 26.4.2011. Police rescued all these girls on 26.4.2011 and then reports came to be recorded. Police papers show that statements of the persons, who effected raid, were recorded and from brothel house around 83 articles came to be recovered which were used for such illegal activities. As the girls have made allegations that they were compelled to work as prostitutes, the crimes are registered for offence punishable under section 376 of IPC also. In view of this material, this Court has rejected the bail application of Pradeep Muswat in Cr. No. 73/2011. 4. The record shows that in the past in a case filed under PITA Act, present applicants were given bail and so they were expected not to indulge in similar crime. It is clear that immediately after getting released on bail, they got indulged in similar activities and Cri. Appln. Nos. 2861 to 2867/11 6 they also compelled the aforesaid girls to work as prostitutes. The advocate for applicants submitted that the case cannot be filed under section 376 of IPC. This submission is not acceptable at this stage. When there is allegation that girls were compelled by locking their room to work as prostitutes, at this stage, it can be said that section 109 of IPC can be used along with section 376 of IPC as against the present applicants. Further, section 6 of PITA Act also provides for severe punishment and that is also serious allegation. Though it can be said that in view of provisions of sections 219 and 220 of Criminal Procedure Code, police could have registered one case, this point need not be discussed in detail at this stage. The fact remains, after getting released in PITA case the present applicants indulged in similar illegal activities and this fact is sufficient to reject the bail applications. 5. The advocate for the applicants has produced a copy of attendance register in respect of four girls, who are granted bail in Cr. No. 7/2011 to show that they appeared before the Investigating Officer in the said case, as per the conditions imposed, on 27.3.2011 at 12.10 noon. On the basis of this circumstance, it was submitted by the advocate that there was the opportunity to girls to complain to police atleast on 27.3.2011 that they were illegally Cri. Appln. Nos. 2861 to 2867/11 7 detained, but they did not make such complaint. He submitted that it needs to be inferred that they were not illegally detained. He also submitted the fact that they were working as prostitutes which can be inferred on the basis of Cr. No. 7/2011 also and needs to be considered in this regard. This Court holds that such submissions are not acceptable at this stage. If the girls, who were involved in such illegal activities in the past, want to give up such activities and want to make good start in their life, such chance needs to be given to them. When they have come forward with a case that they were illegally detained by the present applicants, at this stage, the allegations can be used for making prima facie case. This Court has already rejected bail application of Pradeep Muswat on merits in one crime and the facts of the other cases are not at all different. Copy of the attendance register shows that atleast two girls are resident of Calcutta. It appears that before Sessions Court a submission was made that due to this circumstance, the Court may not be in a position to expedite the trial. It was submitted that the charge-sheet is not yet filed. If the case is not concluded within six months then that circumstance can be considered in future and in that case, the applicants can be allowed to file bail application on that ground even to Sessions Court. Cri. Appln. Nos. 2861 to 2867/11 8 6. So all the applications stand rejected. If the cases, which may be filed against the applicants, are not concluded within six months from today, applicants will be at liberty to file bail applications, even in the Court of Sessions. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/criapln2861.11