IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3230 OF 2009 Ashok Shrinarayan Vyas ........ Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent. Mr. A.P. Mundargi Sr. counsel a/w S.V. Marwadi i/b. Jaideep V. Thakkara Sunita Sharma adv. for the Applicant Mr. H.J. Dedhia APP. for the Respondent/State. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 7th August, 2009. P. C.: 1. This is an application moved under section 439 of Cr.P.C. claiming release of the applicant on bail. An offence is registered against the present applicant/accused in C.R. No. II-53/09 by Mira Road Police station under section 3,4,5,6 and 7 (1)(b) of PITA Act. upon a complaint of a police constable. There are other three accused persons in this case including the brothel keeper. On 21-4-2009 the premises were raided and it was found that five girls were present in the premises who were indulging in prostitution. The raiding party found the present applicant in one of the rooms. Statements of the girls are recorded. Perusal of the statements reveal that the present applicant used to bring customers from outside for flesh trade in the premises and in return thereof used to be paid commission by the persons operating the brothel. Thus the role attributed to the present applicant is that of a pimp working for the person operating the brothel. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to the relevant provisions of PITA Act to contend that sections 3 and 6 are not at all attracted even if the prosecution case is taken to be correct in its entirety. The punishment for offence under section 7 is only three months, whereas for offence under section 5 the punishment is `not less than three years and not more than seven years’. Prima facie it appears, so far as the present applicant is concerned that section 5 is not attracted but section 4 would operate. As none of the girls are miner, the punishment as stipulated in the first part of section 4 would be attracted and the punishment is imprisonment for a term which may extent to two years or with fine which may extent to Rs. 1000/-. Thus in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant need to be released on bail as he is in custody since 21-4-2009 i.e. for about three and half months. The learned APP opposed the application, and submits that in case the applicant is released on bail he be put to terms, so that he will not indulge in similar activities on being released on bail. As I am of the view that in the facts of the present case, the applicant need to be released on bail I pass the following order. 3. The applicant shall be released on bail on execution of personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicant shall attend Mira Road police station once a week on every Saturday between 6 to 8 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)