Rohit Ranjan Kamalkant Singh v. The State Of Maharashtra

Sknair 916-aba-2480-18.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2480 OF 2018 Rohit Ranjam Kamalkant Singh ... Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ...

Ms. Falguni Brahmbhatt for the applicant.

Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Karande, PSI, Oshiwara Police Station is present. ...

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE : 4th DECEMBER, 2018.

P.C.

1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No. 524 of 2017 registered with Oshiwara Police Station. The offences were registered under Section 370(3) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of PITA Act. 2.

The prosecution case is that upon receipt of confidential secret information by the police on 20th December, 2017 that under the pretext of running spa, prostitution is carried out at "Thai Spa" situated at Shop No.1, Meera Tower, Oshiwara, Andheri. Accordingly, police had laid trap. They had arranged for decoy customer and following due procedure has also arranged for panch witnesses. At about 6.40 p.m. raiding party entered the Spa. Two girls were seen inside the Spa. There was a person sitting on the counter. About five girls were rescued during raid. There were two

Sknair 916-aba-2480-18.odt customers also found in the Spa. One girl was found with the decoy customer. According to prosecution, applicant is the owner of the Spa and hence, FIR came to be registered.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is licencee of the premises and apart from that there is no evidence against the applicant. Investigating machinery had disconnected the CCTV camera when the raid was conducted.

4.

Learned APP pointed out the statement of the witnesses and other material which clearly shows the involvement of the applicant. 5.

On perusal of the statement of the witnesses, it is seen that applicant is the owner of the said Spa and the business of massage was conducted by the applicant in Spa for massage of the customer and on the pretext of massage the prostitution activities were conducted. On the basis of the statement of the victim, the involvement of the applicant is clearly established. Hence, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Application stands rejected.

( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. )