1 criapln3954-11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NOS.3954 TO 3961 & 4173 OF 2011 Pradip Rupchand Muswat and another .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Shri N.B.Narwade Advocate for applicants. Shri C.R.Deshpande,Advocate for applicant in Cri.Apln.No.3961/11. Shri D.R.Korde,APP for State. .... CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3961/2011 Sunil @ Sandip Manik Shelke .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Shri C.R.Deshpande Advocate for applicant in Cri.Apln.No.3961/11. Shri D.R.Korde,APP for State. .... CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE, J. DATE : 12th October 2011 PER COURT 1] All these applications are second applications filed for bail and the previous applications were rejected on merits. The papers of investigation are 2 criapln3954-11.odt made available by A.P.P. Charge sheets are filed in all the crimes. As the crimes are registered out of the same incident, and the record is similar, the applications are being disposed of by common order. Separate hearing was given to Advocate Shri C.R.Deshpande and Advocate Shri N.B.Narwade. A.P.P. was also given hearing. 2] Criminal Application No.3954/11 is filed for bail in Crime No.74/11 registered in Shevgaon police station, Dist. Ahmednagar, by applicants Pradip Muswat and Sunil Shelke. This crime is registered on the basis of report given by one lady Kusum Faruq Mulla. The papers of investigation show that the raid was effected on the basis of information given by husband of one of the ladies who were detained in brothel house. Allegations are made against the applicant Pradip Muswat that in the previous case, in Crime No.7/11 registered in the same police station, as Pradip was required to spend some amount for getting bail order, he had compelled these ladies and others to continue the prostitution in his brothel house. Kusum and others were forcibly detained in a room and by locking the room. Allegations are made that the customers were being brought by these persons and they were collecting their share and they were preventing the ladies from leaving the place. 3] Application No.3955/11 is filed in Crime No.75/11 registered in the same police station in respect of incident dated 26/4/2011. Crime is registered on the basis of report given by another lady. She has made similar allegations against Pradip and Sunil and both have applied for bail. 3 criapln3954-11.odt 4] Application No.3956/11 is filed in Crime No.76/11 registered in the same police station on the basis of report given by third lady and she has made similar allegations against Pradip and Sunil Shelke. 5] Application No.3957/11 is filed in Crime No.77/11 in the same police station on the basis of report given by fourth lady and she has made similar allegations against Pradip and Sunil Shelke. 6] Application No.3958/11 is filed in Crime No.78/11 in the same police station on the basis of report given by fifth lady who was found at that place and she has also made similar allegations against Pradip and Sunil Shelke. 7] Lastly Application No.3959/11 is filed in Crime No.79/11 in the same police station on the basis of report given by one more lady and she has made similar allegations against Pradip and Sunil Shelke. 8] Application Nos.3960/11 and 3961/11 are filed in Crime No.73/11 in the same police station on the basis of report given by one more lady and she has made similar allegations against Pradip and Sunil Shelke. 9] Crimes are registered for offences punishable under Sections 344, 376 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and U/s 3 to 7 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 [PITA for short] . The papers of investigation contain statements of the 4 criapln3954-11.odt ladies and statements of police officers who took part in the raid. 10] It was mainly submitted for the applicants that no officer who can be called as Special Police Officer or Traffic Officer as mentioned in Sections 13 and 14 was present in the raiding party and so, the investigation is vitiated. It was submitted for the State that the investigation is being carried out by one P.I. Shri Mane who is authorised by notification issued by the State Government as required u/s 13 of PITA. On this point, some reported cases were cited – [1] 2007 Cri.L.J. 2394 Shri Parimal Gowala and others V/s State of Tripura [2] AIR 1962 P H 91 The State V/s Mehro and others and [3] 1962 Cr.L.J.0-106, 1962-SCR-2-694 Delhi Admistration V/s Ram Singh. 11] It was submitted for the applicants that in view of the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 of PITA, 1956, the applicants are entitled to get bail and the material collected by the officers who were not of the rank as contemplated u/s 13 and 14, cannot be used against them. 12] The submissions made for the applicants in respect of Sections 13 and 14 cannot be used atleast at this stage and in respect of offence punishable u/s 376 of I.P.C. It was submitted that Section 376 of I.P.C. is also not attracted in view of the age of the ladies and as they admitted that they were prostitutes. Though it is true that the ladies have admitted that they are prostitutes but they have made allegations that they were prevented to leave that place and they were illegally detained by Pradip. There are specific 5 criapln3954-11.odt allegations against Sunil that he was sending customers and he was collecting commission from them. The material is sufficient to make out prima facie case that they had forcibly detained these ladies in that place and they were compelling them to work as prostitute. In addition to these cases, two more cases were registered atleast against Pradip Muswat. One was registered in 2009 and other was Crime No.7/11 registered in the same police station. These circumstances are sufficient to show that Pradip is not ready to give up aforesaid illegal activities. In one case, minor girls aged about 14 years were detained and that bail application of Pradip bearing Application No.4173/11 is rejected by this Court today only. These circumstances cannot be ignored by this Court while deciding present applications. It was submitted for Sunil Shelke that he has no other criminal record. However, in view of the aforesaid record, this Court holds that it is not fit case to release Sunil Shelke on bail. While rejecting previous application filed for bail, this Court had directed the trial Court to expedite the trial. It was submitted that the ladies or the girls may not be available for trial and the trial cannot be expedited. At this stage, such inference cannot be drawn. In any case, on merits, there is no case for the applicants to get bail and so all the applications stand rejected. 13] These observations are only in respect of bail proceedings and they cannot be used at the time of trial. (T.V.NALAWADE,J. ) umg/criapln3954-11