Yusuf @ Langda Shaikh v. State Of Maharashtra

Digitally signed by RUSHIKESH V PATIL Date:

2022.04.28 16:23:48 +0530 RUSHIKESH V PATIL 5 ABA.1085.2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1085 OF 2022 Yusuf @ Langda Shaikh .. Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra .. Respondent **** Mr. Rahul B. Kadu, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. M. R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Anil Lohar, API, Wakad Police Station, Pune, present. **** CORAM :

VINAY JOSHI, J.

DATE :

21st APRIL, 2022.

P.C. :

.

Heard.

2.

In anticipation of arrest in Crime No. 147 of 2022, registered with Wakad Police Station, District Pune, for the ofence punishable under Sections 370(3) r/w 34 of the India Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the PITA Act, the applicant is praying for pre-arrest protection. 3.

It is prosecution case that on the basis of secret information, the police laid trap and by use of dummy customer verifed the information. AT the time of raid, some girls brought for prostitution and some others got apprehended. During interrogation, the apprehended persons stated that R.V.Patil 1/2

5 ABA.1085.2022.doc they are acting on behalf of the applicant and two others. It is alleged that at the instance of the applicant, girls for prostitution were provided and the amount taken from the customers was distributed between the applicant and two others. It is also stated that they use to ask the girls to contact the mobile numbers of customers and to meet at specifed place. 4.

It is argued that there is no specifc evidence against the applicant. The investigation is at preliminary stage. The ofence is of antisocial nature. In FIR itself the complicity of accused is revealed. It is brought to the notice that earlier the applicant was involved in similar type of crime. In earlier crime, he has secured pre-arrest bail on certain conditions. While applicant was on bail in similar type of crime, existing FIR has been lodged. In such type of cases the police should get the opportunity to investigate thoroughly to unearth the entire racket. Having regard to the prima facie involvement and seriousness of the crime, it is not a ft case to grant pre-arrest protection. In view of that, application stands rejected. (VINAY JOSHI, J.) R.V.Patil 2/2