1 ABA: 308/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.308 OF 2011 Sau. Renu Udaykumar M.G. & Ors. ... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. Subhash Jha i/by Mr. Subhash Hulyalkar for applicants. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 19th July, 2011 P.C. 1. The applicants in this anticipatory bail application are apprehending their arrest in C.R. No.2 of 2011 registered at Faraskhana Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 344, 363, 366(A), 372, 373 read with 34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 2. The applicants are the owners of the premises i.e. Flat No.5, House No.944, New Building, 1st Floor, Budhwar Peth, Pune, 2 ABA: 308/2011 where on 3rd January 2010 at about 22.10 hours., a raid was conducted. It was found that accused Sushila Kancha Thapa was carrying business of prostitution by keeping six minor girls for the purpose of prostitution. The applicants as the owners of the premises in which business of prostitution was being carried out are liable under Section 3, (2)(b) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Sub Section 2-A of Section 3 contains a presumption that until the contrary is proved, the owner of such premises had knowingly allowed the premises to be used as a brothel, if a report is published in a newspaper having circulation in the area, in which, the said person resides to the effect that the premises or any part thereof have been found to be used for prostitution as a result of a search made under this Act. The learned APP points out that the area in which, the premises are situate is commonly known to everybody as the area in which prostitution takes place in abundance. 3. Mr. Jha submits that implication of the applicants into the offence is obviously an afterthought since the charge-sheet as filed in January 2011 did not name the applicants, as the owners. He however admits that the applicants have been 3 ABA: 308/2011 owners of the premises since the year 2003. The learned APP points out that despite the sale of the premises, the necessary changes in the property register card had not been carried out and property card continued to show the name of one Mr. Hendre, the developer of the property, as its owner. As soon as the police learnt that the premises are owned by the applicants, they took steps for sealing of the premises and proceeded against the applicants. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, this is not the case where this court should exercise its extra ordinary powers to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the application is rejected. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)