1309ba457.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 457 OF 2011 (Asmansingh @ Usmansingh s/o Hawaliya Karmawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R. M. Patwardhan, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. P. D. Kothari, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. CORAM: U. V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 13TH SEPT., 2011 Heard. 2. The applicant, who has been arrested on 25/6/2011 in Crime No. 3669/2011 of Lakadganj Police Station, Nagpur, registered for offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, “PITA”), has filed this application for bail. 3. The respondent has filed reply resisting the application. 4. There is no dispute about the fact that the applicant is the owner of the building in which the eight victims allegedly doing the business of prostitution and other accused were found on 24/6/2011. The section applicable to the present applicant appears to be Section 3(2) of PITA and on first conviction, the punishment provided is imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and fine which may extend to Rs. 2,000/-. 1309ba457.11.odt 2/3 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur had rejected the bail application mainly on the ground that the investigation was still in progress and for proper and appropriate investigation, it was not advisable to grant bail. However, now the circumstances have changed. The investigation is complete and a charge-sheet has already been filed. 6. It is argued by the learned A.P.P. that there are five crimes registered against the applicant for similar offences. However, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused is previous convict. The applicant is not in custody in any of the said five crimes mentioned in the reply. Another objection of the learned A.P.P. is that the applicant is not from Maharashtra State but he is from Gwalior (M.P.) and therefore likely to abscond. 7. The above cannot be a ground to reject the bail to the applicant. Appropriate conditions can be put to secure the presence of the applicant during the trial. The applicant is an old person of 65 years age and has alleged that he is diabetic and suffers from blood pressure and hyper tension, which fact has not been denied by the respondent. I am of the view that no purpose will be served by detaining the applicant in custody. Hence, in the interest of justice, the application deserves to be allowed with certain conditions. 8. The application is allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail in Lakadganj Police Station, Nagpur Crime 1309ba457.11.odt 3/3 No. 3669/2011 under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of PITA upon execution of personal recognition bond of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount under the following conditions :- (a) The applicant shall attend Lakadganj Police Station, Nagpur once in fortnight i.e. on Monday, between 10.00 a.m. to 12 O-clock(noon) until the disposal of the case. (b) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. (c) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. 8. Hamdast granted. JUDGE wwl