Allowed

Salubai Mahadev Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Dec 2023ABA/3395/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court granted pre-arrest bail to Salubai Mahadev Shinde, a 73-year-old woman, accused of running a brothel under IPTA and IPC. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary due to her age and remote flight risk, while imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

(i) Applicant released on bail on PR bond Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties; (ii) Restricted from identical activity; (iii) Directed to appear at specific dates.

Salubai Mahadev Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:36859

¶2

913 aba 3395 of 2023.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3395 OF 2023

¶4

Salubai Mahadev Shinde … Applicant

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Aniket Nikam with Mr. Piyush Toshnival i/by Mr. Amit Icham, for Applicant. Smt. A.A.Takalkar, APP for State.

¶8

Mr. Sanjay More, Vishrambag Police Station present.

¶9

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 8 DECEMBER 2023

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

This is an application for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No.583

¶13

of 2023 registered with Vishrambaug Police Station, Sangli for the offences punishable under Sections 366B, 370 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 14 of

¶14

the Foreign Citizens Act, 1946 and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967.

¶15

Pursuant to an intimation, on 22 October 2023, a raid was conducted at Gokul Nagar, Galli No.5, Sangli wherein the applicant was allegedly found running a brothel and living on the earning of the prostitution. In the said raid, a victim was found with the decoy. It transpired that the applicant was taking Rs.1000/- per customer from the said victim.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the applicant is 73

¶17

SSP 1/3

¶18

913 aba 3395 of 2023.doc

¶19

years old lady. She has been roped in for being the holder of the said room. In fact, the affairs of the said premises were managed by the son of the applicant, who has since been arrested.

¶20

Learned APP resisted the application for pre-arrest bail. It was submitted that the statement of the victim indicates that the applicant was the person who was living on the earnings of the prostitutes.

¶21

The applicant appears to be above 70 years of age. Prima facie, the applicant seems to have been implicated for being the holder of the premises. Though the allegations of running a brothel have made against the applicant, yet, the learned APP, on instructions, submits that there are no antecedents. The son of the applicant who was allegedly managing the affairs of the said premises, has since been arrested.

¶22

In the aforesaid backdrop, having regard to the age of the applicant and

¶23

the nature of the accusation, the custodial interrogation of the applicant does not seem to be warranted to facilitate further investigation. The applicant appears to have a fixed place of abode. Possibility of fleeing away from justice and tampering with evidence appears to be remote. I am, therefore, persuaded to exercise discretion in favour of the Applicant.

¶24

Hence, the following order :

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(i) In the event of the arrest of the Applicant – Salubai Mahadev

¶27

SSP 2/3

¶28

913 aba 3395 of 2023.doc

¶29

Shinde in connection with C.R.No.583 of 2023 registered with Vishrambaug Police Station, the Applicant be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶30

(ii) The Applicant shall not indulge in identical activity for which she

¶31

has been arraigned in this case.

¶32

(iii) The Applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and report to Vishrambaug Police Station on 15^th and 16^th December 2023 in between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., and thereafter, as and when directed and also mark her presence at Vishrambaug Police Station on 1^st Monday of every alternate month in between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon for a period of one year.

¶33

(iv) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence

¶34

and/or give threat or inducement to the first informant or any of the prosecution witnesses or any of the persons acquainted with the facts of the case.

¶35

(v) The Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the

¶36

jurisdictional Court.

¶37

(vi) The application stands disposed.

¶38

(vii) It is, however, clarified that the observations are confined to the

¶39

consideration of entitlement for pre-arrest bail and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations in further proceedings.

¶40

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶41

3/3

¶42

SSP

Salubai Mahadev Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salubai Mahadev Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dadaso Keshav Sase Vs State of Maharashtra

Varsha Nandkumar Beldar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pallavi Amay Beldar @ Pallavi Murlidhar Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gulshan Arif Tase Vs State of Maharashtra

Aatif Aarif Tase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Munawar Haroon Khan Vs State of Maharashtra