Anticipatory bail application rejected. Court held sufficient material from victim statements established applicant's involvement in offences under IT(Prevention) Act and IPC, making custodial interrogation necessary.
Application for anticipatory bail is 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.
40-ABA-496-21.odt
1 / 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.496 OF 2021
Manish Kanji Makwana.... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent
…....
Mr.Rushikesh Patil, Advocate for Applicant.Ms.A.A. Takalkar, APP for the State/Respondent.CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 23rd FEBRUARY, 2021
P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with C.R.No.476/2020 registered with Nigdi Police Station,
Pimpri-Chinchwad, dated 15/12/2020, under sections 3, 4, of
the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and under section
370 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Mr.Rushikesh Patil, learned counsel for the
Applicant and Ms. A.A. Takalkar, learned APP for the State.
Nesarikar
2 / 3 40-ABA-496-21.odt
3. The FIR is lodged on 14/12/2020 by API Vijay Laxman
Kamble, attached to Social Security Squad in Pimpri-Chinchwad.
He has stated that on prior information police party arranged to
conduct a raid at a Spa on Mumbai-Pune highway. For that
purpose two panchas and a bogus customer were called. Bogus
customer was given four currency notes of Rs.500/-
denomination. He was asked to give prearranged signal i.e. a
missed call, once his money was accepted. At about 04.15 p.m.
on 14/12/2020 after receiving a missed call from the bogus
customer the police party conducted raid on that particular Spa.
The bogus customer was found with the victim. There was one
Shan Mahemud Khan in the premises. He claimed to be the
manager of the Spa. The notes given by the police which were
marked earlier, were found with the said person. He was
apprehended and thus FIR is lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
Applicant is a lady and she is willing to cooperate with the
investigation. She was only in possession of the Spa, pursuant to
a lease agreement. She has nothing to do with the prostitution.
3 / 3 40-ABA-496-21.odt
5. Learned APP opposed this application and produced
the paper of investigation before me.
6. I have considered these submissions and in particular I
have perused the statements of victims in this case. There were
statements of four victims. All of them have identically narrated
that they were forced to have sex with the customers visiting
that Spa centre. These victims have categorically stated that the
manager Shan Mahemud Khan and the present Applicant used
to take money from the customers directly and only some part of
the money was paid to the victims. Thus, at this stage, there is
sufficient material against the Applicant to show her
involvement in the offence. The offence is serious. Her custodial
interrogation is necessary to find out the activities she has
indulged in and to find all the victims who had suffered at her
hands. No case for anticipatory bail is made out. The application
is rejected.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in connection with the FIR.
Whether sufficient material exists to show the applicant's involvement in the offence necessitating custodial interrogation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manish Kanji Makwana
State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court