Zeenat Darvesh Shaikh v. State Of Maharashtra

Prajakta Vartak 11-ABA 2916-22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2916 OF 2022 Ms. Zeenat Darvesh Shaikh ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

.........

Mr. Vaibhav Ugle i/b. Mr. Arvind Chamle for the Applicant. Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, APP for the State.

.........

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATED : 21st OCTOBER, 2022.

P.C. :- 1.

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail. 2.

The applicant is apprehending her arrest in Crime No.49 of 2022 registered at Kharghar Police Station, Navi Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 370(3) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

3.

Pursuant to the secret information, a raid was conducted at Graceful Touch Unisex Saloon and Spa owned by the present applicant and it was found that the present applicant and the other 1 / 2

Prajakta Vartak 11-ABA 2916-22.odt co-accused under the guise of Saloon and Spa were running brothel.

4.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in the business of cosmetic treatment and as it was not possible for her to look after the business of Saloon and Spa in question, she had appointed Mr. Ravi Shivcharan (co-accused) as Manager to run the Saloon and Spa in question and he was responsible for day-to-day activities and business of the said Spa. It is submitted nothing is to be recovered at the instance of applicant and therefore, her custodial interrogation is not necessary. 5.

I have perused the statement of the victims. Their statements show that the Saloon and Spa in question was being used as a brothel. It further appears from their statements that the present applicant induced them and even threatened them to indulge in the prostitution activity.

6.

Considering the statement of the victims, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) 2 / 2