( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3960 OF 2010 Kalyan Bhausaheb Jagtap APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Mr. A.S. Zinjurde, advocate for the applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 12th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The application is for anticipatory bail. 2. The recitals of the FIR prima facie indicate that a raid was conducted on 6th September, 2010 at about 1820 hours on a lodge styled as "Hotel Lucky Lodging", situated in the proximity of S.T. stand, Ahmednagar, in pursuance to a clandestine information received by the police to the effect that the owner of the lodge and the Manager thereof was indulging in providing prostitutes and girls to the customers. It was found that various young girls were dealing in the flesh trading. Some of them were half-necked and there were ( 2 ) customers. The FIR was lodged after obtaining necessary information from the alleged prostitutes and the Manager of the lodge. Certain amount, a duplicate receipt-book, packets of condoms, etc. were recovered by drawing a separate panchanama. The enquiry with the Manager by name Balasaheb Gaikwad revealed that the present applicant was owner of the lodge. 3. The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the applicant is an agriculturist and has nothing to do with the business of the lodging. He would further submit that the applicant was not residing at Ahmednagar, nor was beneficiary of the alleged trading in the prostitution. He, therefore, seeks protection under directions contemplated in view of section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I find it difficult to countenance the argument of the learned advocate. The FIR itself shows that name of the applicant as owner of the lodge was revealed during enquiry with the Manager by name Balasaheb Gaikwad. Said Balasaheb Gaikwad had no business to falsely name his master. The FIR itself further shows that several young girls from various parts of the country such as Calcutta, Bangalore were dealing in the business of flesh trading. The modus operandi was that the Manager used to ( 3 ) accept the money from the customer and used to issue a receipt on production of which, the particular girl used to permit the customer to enter the room and thereafter, to have the sexual intercourse with her. It does not stand to reason that though the applicant is owner and runs the business of lodging, yet, was not knowing about such business in the flesh trading. It does not prima facie stand to reason that without his connivance and knowledge, prostitution business was being conducted in the premises. Under the circumstances, the application does not fall within ambit of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, it is dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3960-10