Anita Kumari Matadin Kori v. State Of Maharashtra

Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date:

2024.09.13 01:20:15 +0530 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2320 of 2024 Anita Kumari Matadin Kori Age 28 years, Occ. Beautician, R/at. Om Sai Krupa Chawl, Akurli Road, Hanuman Nagar, Kandivali (E), Mumbai.

Maharashtra - 400 101.

Mobile No. 8291435808 ...Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra (Through Goregaon Police Station)

...Respondent

---- Mr Narayan LP Mishra a/w Ms Ayesha Shaikh, for the Applicant. Mr Yogesh Y Dabke, APP for the Respondent - State. PI Satish Umare, Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai is present. ---- Coram: R. N. Laddha, J.

Date: 11 September 2024 P.C.

Heard Mr. Narayan Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Yogesh Dabke, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent / State.

2.

This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, apprehending arrest in CR No.507 of 2024, registered at Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 3.

The prosecution contends that after receiving confidential information regarding women being coerced into the sex trade for

financial gain, a raid was conducted at Riddhi Ayurvedic Wellness, a Spa Centre located at Motilal Nagar, Goregaon (West), Mumbai. At the time of raid, the applicant was responsible for managing the operations of this Spa Centre under a leave and license agreement. Subsequently, the informant lodged a complaint, leading to the registration of the crime.

4.

Mr Narayan Mishra, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, asserts the applicant's innocence, emphasising that she has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The learned Counsel points out that the applicant's name does not appear in the FIR, nor has any victim named her as being involved. At the relevant time, the applicant was not present at the said Centre, which clearly indicates her lack of knowledge and involvement in the alleged crime. Furthermore, the alleged victims were adults with knowledge of situation, and there are no accusations against the applicant coercing anyone into illegal activities. All the co-accused have already been released on bail. Mr Mishra contends that the applicant has been unfairly made a scapegoat in this case. The learned Counsel highlights that the investigation has been completed, and there is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant, as the charge sheet has already been filed. 5.

On the other hand, Mr Yogesh Dabke, the learned APP representing the State, resisted the application. The learned APP argues that the applicant's involvement in executing leave and license agreement demonstrates her knowledge of the activities taking place

within the centre. Mr Dabke, emphasis that the nature of the offence is grave and poses a significant threat to society. 6.

This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and thoroughly reviewed the records. It appears that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant. Admittedly, the applicant was not present at the time of the raid. Prima facie, there is no material suggesting that the applicant was aware of the alleged illegal activities conducted at the Centre. Apart from the bare allegations that the applicant was managing the affairs of the Centre, there is nothing on record showing the applicant's knowledge of the alleged illegal activities. There appears no need for the custodial interrogation of the applicant. 7.

In light of the above, this Court is inclined to allow the application. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

(i) In the event of the applicant's arrest in connection with CR No.507 of 2024, registered at Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai, she shall be released on bail upon executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing one or more sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall attend the jurisdictional Court regularly and cooperate with the

expeditious disposal of the trial.

(iii) The applicant shall not, herself or through any other person, indulge in any activity that would tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.

7.

The application stands disposed of accordingly. [ R. N. Laddha, J.]