Cri. Apln. 2120/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2120 OF 2011 Lilabai Shankar Khandagale, (Lilabai Kisan Khandagle) Age 70 yrs., Occu. Business, (Panstall & Kirana shop owner) R/o. Shinde Pan Mala, Ward No. 2, Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. Rajesh Pardeshi, Advocate for applicant. Mr. G.R. Ingole, APP for State. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 6th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code in Cr.No. 18/2011 registered with Shrirampur Police Station, Tal. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. The offence is registered under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA). 2. On receipt of secret information police effected raid on the premises situated at Ward No. 2, Dhangar Vasti, Shrirampur. One punter Cri. Apln. 2120/11 2 was sent by police with marked currency notes. When the punter gave signal, the raid was effected. Twelve prostitutes were found in the house and some customers were also found. The material which is generally used for prostitution was also recovered. During inquiry with the person who was collecting the money and with whom the currency notes were found, it transpired that the brothel house was being run by the applicant. Since then the present applicant was not available. The Sessions Court rejected the application of the applicant by holding that the applicant has committed breach of conditions imposed by the High Court in the anticipatory bail which was granted in the similar type of crime in the past and within two months of getting the order of release from High Court, the applicant was again found involved in the offence punishable under PITA. 3. The applicant has produced the record like certificate in respect of the institution of "Nari Sahakari Mahila Munch" which is situated in ward No. 2 of Shrirampur. Today the copy of the application given to DIG by the applicant is produced, in which she has contended that the premises which was raided is in possession of others and she has given premises on rent. This submission is not acceptable at this stage. Owner of the house is responsible for such illegal and immoral activities if she does not take steps to prevent such activities. The record shows that in the past also, the applicant was involved in similar kind of offence and at Cri. Apln. 2120/11 3 that time this Court had given relief of anticipatory bail. The advocate for applicant submitted that she committed no breach of conditions as no conditions were imposed by the Court earlier and therefore, there is no question of breach of conditions. When the relief of bail is granted, it needs to be presumed that the conditions mentioned in sections 437, 438 and 439, which are always there. In view of these circumstances and as in such cases, the custodial interrogation is necessary and as such the activities are anti social, no anticipatory bail can be granted in this case to the applicant. Ultimately, the application stands rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/criapln2120.11