1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2533 of 2010 (Raju @ Rajabhau s/o Sitaram Waghmare Vs. The State ) WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2758 OF 2010 (Jainoddin Bashir Syed vs. State of Maharashtra) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.P.P.More, APP for the respondent. ... CORAM: A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE:14-7-2010 P.C.:- 1. Both these applications arise out of Crime No.13/2010 registered in Yermala Police Station and hence are disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Counsel for the applicants so also learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Both these applicants are prosecuted for the offenses under Sections 341, 342, 366, 120-B of 2 IPC and under Section 3 to 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (PITA). 3. During the course of submissions across the Bar, it is contended that the complainant herein was arrested on 19.2.2010, around 4 p.m. by the Police while it is noticed that she was behaving in an indecent manner at 4 p.m. near Chorakhali factory. After her arrest, she was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kallam. During her interrogation she disclosed that one year back she, along with her cousin sister, had been to one fare and, on their way back, they came in contact with the applicant in the first application who requested the complainant and her sister to have a dinner at their hotel and, during the night hours, requested them to stay there, which offer was accepted by the complainant and her sister. It appears from the disclosure statement in the said complaint that, after the dinner was over 3 and these two sisters slept in the inside room, complainant was woken at the call of the applicant in first application and then was introduced in the flesh trade. Since about one year, she is indulging in the said trade and, after her arrest, she disclosed these facts to the investigating agency. According to her, during day hours, the applicant in first application used to keep her in the nearby field and whenever required, he used to call her. Very surprising to note that no attempts were made by her to escape from that field. It appears, during the investigation, the premises of the Dhaba was raided by the investigating agency and they found that some other girls were engaged in the flesh trade, working in the said Dhaba and they were also narrating the same thing in stereotype manner and their statements were recorded during the investigation. These applicants came to be arrested on 21st Feb.,2010, in connection with these crimes and after 4 investigation is over, chargesheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yermala, on 17.5.2010 and trial is waiting its turn for passing necessary committal order and to be tried before the Special Court. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, considering the penal punishment provided under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the PITA, the minimum punishment is two years and if the detention is proved then, under Section 6, the punishment can be extended to life imprisonment. According to her, perusal of the papers of investigation, whether Section 341 and 342 of the Penal Code is attracted or not is debatable question then whether Section 6 of the PITA will attract or otherwise, is also debatable, as it is already noticed in the earlier part of this order that during the day hours, as per the submission of the complainant victim, the first applicant used to keep her in the nearby field 5 situated at the Dhaba which fact cannot be accepted, in the backdrop in which condition complainant was arrested by the Police on the day earlier at 4 p.m. when she was behaving in indecent manner at the public place. The applicant in the second application is working as waiter in the said hotel who is projected during investigation as so called husband of the complainant. 4. Learned A.P.P. objected the bail applications on the point that there are criminal antecedents to the credit of the first applicant as four criminal cases are pending against him out of which two cases are under Bombay Prohibition Act while two cases are under Indian Penal Code. One case is pending against the applicant in second application but these are not the cases registered under the provisions of PITA Act as it is not a case of the prosecution that earlier also these applicants also indulged in 6 similar type of offenses, released on bail and, after release on bail, again indulged in similar type of offenses. No doubt, the fear of prosecution is true that if released, there is likelihood of indulgence in similar type of offenses by the applicant but the Court has to take the note that such indulgence will not be permitted unless protected by some authorities. If on complaint Police will take proper action against these applicants then all these notorious activities will be stopped once for all and it is the duty of the Police Department to play their role properly for which this Court is not supposed to comment anything. As now the investigation is over, there are no chances of tampering, as the case, even if accepted, the result is reflected therein itself. In view of this, the applications deserve for following order: ORDER a) Both the applications (Nos. 7 2533/2010 and 2758/2010) are allowed. b) Applicants in both the applications be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each and on furnishing P.R. bond in the like amount. c) After release on bail, the applicants to give attendance in Yermala Police Station, twice a month, on each 16th and 24th day of the month, till trial against them is finally over. Criminal Applications disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR ) JUDGE ... agp/2533-10crapl