Dismissed

Prasad S/O Shrihari Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Jan 2021ABA/18/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application wherein the applicant, accused of running a brothel under the PITA Act, sought bail. The court observed that the matter required investigation and custodial interrogation, rejecting the claim regarding the officer's competency as immaterial at the stage.

What did the court decide?

Application is rejected. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is imperative for the investigation.

This is an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking bail in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with Crime No.129/2020 registered with Vedantnagar Police Station, Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA Act).

2]In substance the allegations are to the effect that a raid was effected on a tip off on a premises where couple of women were found engaged in prostitution, some customers were also there. It is being alleged that the applicant is the brothel keeper and had facilitated running of that brothel through a co-accused who was engaged as a manager.

3]The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. He is being falsely implicated. All the misdeeds are of the co- accused manager who is already behind the bars. The women found there

have stated before the Probation Officer that they were doing the activity voluntarily. There was no duress. The learned advocate would further submit that there is a gross error in effecting the raid by an Officer who is not competent to effect the raid as contemplated under Sections 13 and 15 of the PITA Act.

6]True it is that in the order passed by the Magistrate granting bail to the victim women, there is a reference about they having stated before the Probation Officer that there was no compulsion by anybody for engaging in the prostitution. However, it cannot be comprehended that the applicant was merely allowing them to run their occupation without charging anything.

7]It is in fact a serious matter. The allegations are about running of a brothel. Obviously the matter needs investigation. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is clearly imperative. Whether the investigation is being carried out by the Officer competent to carry out it under the provisions of the PITA Act is a matter which need not bother us at this juncture.

Prasad S/O Shrihari Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad S/O Shrihari Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Shivprasad Agrawat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Husna Begum W/O. Mohmmad Ibrahim Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pramod S/O. Manohar Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra

Karbhari S/O. Kachru Shejwal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sindhu W/O. Machindra Suse and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sagar S/O. Vijay Rajale Vs the State of Maharashtra