Pre-arrest bail application rejected. The High Court held that prima facie case existed under the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act. The applicant was absconding since January 2014. No special circumstances justified the grant of bail.
Application for pre-arrest bail rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
12.ABA1190_2014.doc
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1190 OF 2014
Nisar Ahmed Yakub Mhaldar … Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Mr. Amarsinha Sonkawade, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the State.
CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 16th September, 2014.
P.C.
This Application is moved for prearrest bail, as the
applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of The Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956. The police on the information received, raided National Lodging & Boarding Hotel and found illegal prostitution and immoral trafficking were going
on. They planted a bogus customer and then got the information confirmed. At the time of raid on the said hotel, two females who are residents of Bangladesh and 3 persons were found. At the time of investigation, the police found that applicant/accused Nisar Ahmed Yakub Mhaldar is the owner of the hotel and his Indigo car was used for the purpose of transportation of the females. The police found that the applicant/accused was using these girls for the purpose of his own monetary benefit through the agents. He along with the coaccused were
1 of 3
12.ABA1190_2014.doc
prosecuted under section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of The Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956
P.C. It appears from the contents of the FIR that prima facie there is a case against the applicant/accused under the relevant section of Prevention of
2 of 3
12.ABA1190_2014.doc
Immoral Trafficking Act. Moreover, learned APP submitted that the applicant/accused was earlier prosecuted for similar type of offence in C.R. No. 18/2011 and C.R. No. 01/2013. It is to be noted that the applicant/accused is absconding since January, 2014, as the police have not taken steps to arrest the applicant/accused. In view of this, I am not inclined to grant prearrest bail to the applicant/accused. Hence, the Application for prearrest bail is rejected.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the community of facts disclosed in the FIR against the applicant creates a prima facie case for granting anticipatory bail.
Whether the applicant's apprehension of arrest and co-accused release on bail justifies the grant of bail under section 438 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nisar Ahmed Yakub Mhaldar
The State of Maharashtra
Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
