Sharda Sushil Lalbige @ Sushila @ Charu Sharad Lalbige v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 635 OF 2017 Sharda Sushil Lalbige @ Sushila @ Charu Sharad Lalbige ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Rupesh A. Zade for the Applicant Ms. S. S. Kaushik, A.P.P for the Respondent-State Police Naik Mr. J. A. Jadhav from Baramati City Police Station is present. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

TUESDAY, 18 th APRIL, 2017 P.C. :

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P for the State.

2.

By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 209 of 2017 registered with the Baramati City Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

1/3

3.

Learned Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant was not present at the spot at the time of the raid. He submitted that the applicant is a lady with two young children.

4.

Learned A.P.P opposed the application. She submits that the applicant has lured the victim girls into prostitution activities. She submitted that the statement of the victim girls are testimony of the said fact.

5.

Perused the papers. It appears that a raid was conducted on 23rd March, 2017 on Sargam Hotel, Baramati by sending a decoy customer, pursuant to which, three victim girls were rescued. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged by API Chandrashekhar Yadav of Baramati City Police Station. According to the complaint, they received an information that certain prostitution activities were going on in different hotels. Pursuant to which, the raid was conducted. In the raid that was conducted, PI Jadhav had sent a decoy customer to the said hotel and had told him to demand for a prostitute. Accordingly, a trap was laid and Sandeep Zarad, Sagar Golande, Rahul Pawar and two girls were found in the hotel. The 2/3

victim girl's statement show that it is the applicant who had lured them with money into the prostitution activities and was sending them to various hotels through co-accused. The three victim girls, in their statements, have disclosed the name of the applicant as being the person who had lured them and had sent them for prostitution.

6.

Considering the material against the applicant, this is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant. Accordingly, application stands rejected.

7.

It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie, for the purpose of deciding this application. If an application for regular bail is filed, the learned Judge to decide the same, on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

3/3