( 1 ) cria3991.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3991 OF 2011 Mubin s/o. Nayumoddin Inamdar .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Zia Ul Mustafa, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 09.11.2011 P.C. :- 1. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.33 of 2011 of Kaij Police Station, District – Beed, for offences punishable under sections 3,4,5,6,7 of Immoral Traffic Act & section 376 of the I.P.C. and Sessions Case No.54 of 2011 is presently pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambejogai. After having heard learned advocate for both ( 2 ) cria3991.11 sides, it is abundantly clear that though the applicant styles himself as Mubin Nayumoddin Inamdar, he is also referred by the persons who have rendered statements as Sheikh Mubin Sheikh Najmoddin. It is not case of the applicant that he is not at all the person who is styling himself as Sheikh Mubin Sheikh Najmoddin. On perusal of entire charge-sheet it is noted that one lady, by name, Asha Shinde who is said to have indulged in the prostitution has said that the main agent, by name, Sheikh Mubin Sheikh Najmoddin receives money from her and thrives on the said amount. Another lady, by name, Sangita has also reiterated said allegations. Both the statements clearly indicate that this person, by name, Sheikh Mubin Sheikh Najmoddin has ran away. In the F.I.R. name of present applicant is shown, however, he is not found at the time of raid. The learned advocate for the present applicant submitted that as the applicant was not found on the spot, when the raid was conducted, alleged involvement of the applicant is doubtful. An ( 3 ) cria3991.11 effort was sought to be made to show that co-accused Mr. Bhosale has been granted anticipatory bail, therefore, the principle of parity should be applied. 2. After having gone through the charge-sheet, it is clear from the statements of the witnesses who are said to have paid money to the present applicant that the involvement of the applicant is prima facie made out. The police have already filed charge-sheet in the Court and all this will go to show that during the time when the investigation was going on, present applicant was not available. Otherwise, police had chance to arrest him and to collect more material. In my view for further investigation in the matter and to determine the link of the present applicant with the crime alleged, custodial interrogation is necessary. In my view, the argument of the parity cannot be accepted. Said Mr. Bhosale appears to have been arrested soon after lodgment of the F.I.R.; whereas present applicant has not made himself available ( 4 ) cria3991.11 for investigation on his own or that police have not been able to arrest him. In view of above, the following order is passed. 3. The application for anticipatory bail is rejected. [R.Y. GANOO, J.] snk/2011/NOV11/cria3991.11