IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.3627 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3627 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3627 OF 2008 Vijaykumar Putte Gowda, .. Applicant. Vs The State of Maharashtra and anr., .. Respondents. Mr Bhasin, Advocate, with Mr Sudhakar Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Mr H.J.Dedhiya, APP, for the respondent-State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 8/12/2008 DATE : 8/12/2008 DATE : 8/12/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr Bhasin, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr Dedhiya, learned APP, for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.II-23/2008 of Kashimira police station, Dist-Thane. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and six others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 3,4,5,6 and 7 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act,1956. 3. The prosecution case is that on receipt of a secret information, Kashimira Police Station conducted a raid on 2.4.2008 at 00.05 hours at Divya Jyot Bar, Kashimira (for short, "the bar"). In the raid, the police found 21 girls. They were allegedly engaged in prostitution. The said bar was taken on lease by the applicant and, at the relevant time, the lease was subsisting. According to the prosecution, the applicant himself was conducting the said bar. On the other hand, Mr Bhasin, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the said bar was given on leave and licence to one Sanjay Naik and that the applicant had no concern with the business that was being conducted by Sanjay Naik. He submitted that the applicant had no knowledge that Sanjay Naik was conducting brothel in the said premises. He invited my attention to the leave and licence agreement executed between the applicant and Sanjay Naik. I have perused the said document. It is dated nil. The document is not registered. Prima facie, it does not appear to be genuine agreement. Mr Dedhiya, learned APP, submitted that there is no legal document on record to show that the applicant had given the said bar on leave and licence basis to Sanjay Naik as claimed by him. He then pointed out that the applicant has committed this offence while on bail in C.R.No.225 of 2007 registered with the very same police station. I find absolutely no merit in the submissions advanced by Mr Bashin. Reliance placed by Mr Bhasin on Babu Singh Vs. State of U.P., (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 579, in my opinion, is misplaced. In the circumstances, this application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)