Farzan Salim Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 June, 2019

                                              1/6                          10-ba.1477.2019.doc



nsc.

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                      CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1477 OF 2019


       Farzan Salim Shaikh                                               ...Applicant

                                                                   (Original Accused No.5)

                Versus


       The State of Maharashtra                                           ...Respondent


       Mr.M.S.Mohite i/b Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi, for the Applicant.


       Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, A.P.P for the Respondent - State.


       API - Sunil Lokhande, Borivali Police Station, Mumbai.



                                           CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.


                                           DATE : 3rd JUNE, 2019


       P.C. :



       1.                 Heard learned counsel for the parties.



       2.                 By this application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on


       bail in connection with C.R.No.168 of 2016 registered with the Borivali


       Police        Station, Mumbai,         for the alleged offences punishable under


       Sections 370(3), 114, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4,


       5, 7(1)(b) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA Act).





            ::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019                    ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 00:48:56 :::

                                  2/6                            10-ba.1477.2019.doc



3.               Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant


was the Manager of 'Aura Wellness and Healing Services Private Limited'


(Spa), a company run by the Accused            No.4 - Malik Kashiff Khan


(absconding accused and original accused no.4). He submits that the


applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail, however, the said interim


relief was later vacated and the Anticipatory Bail Application filed by the


said applicant was withdrawn. Learned Counsel further submitted that on


learning that charge-sheet was filed as against him, the applicant suo-motu


appeared before the trial Court and applied for bail, which was rejected by


the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for ITPA vide order


dated 20th April, 2019. He submitted that the ground on which the Bail


Application was rejected was that the applicant was unavailable for two


years after his Anticipatory Bail Application was withdrawn by him.


Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the said observation is in-


correct inasmuch as, the Applicant on learning that charge-sheet was filed,


as against him, had appeared before the Court of the learned Metropolitan


Magistrate and had applied for bail. He further submitted that the Applicant


was only an employee of Aura Wellness and Healing Services Private


Limited and admittedly was not present on the day when the raid was





  ::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019                   ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 00:48:56 :::

                                     3/6                           10-ba.1477.2019.doc



conducted in the said Spa.




4.                   Learned APP on instructions of API - Sunil Lokhande,


Borivali Police Station, does not dispute that the Applicant was a Manager


of the Aura Wellness and Healing Services Private Limited and that he was


not present on the day when the raid was conducted. He also does not


dispute the fact that the Applicant himself had approached the Court of


learned Metropolitan Magistrate and had filed an application for Regular


Bail after filing of the charge-sheet on learning that charge-sheet has been


filed as against him.




5.                 Learned Counsel for the Applicant, on instructions, submits


that although there is one criminal case registered as against the applicant,


the applicant has not been prosecuted under the PITA Act.




6.                 Perused the papers. Admittedly, the Applicant was working as


a Manager of Aura Wellness and Healing Services Private Limited. On 1 st


April, 2016, the police of the Borivali Police Station on information


conducted a raid in the said Spa and some girls came to be rescued.





     ::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2019                  ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2019 00:48:56 :::

                                      4/6                          10-ba.1477.2019.doc



Admittedly, the Applicant was not present at the Spa, at the relevant time,


i.e. when the raid was conducted. It is not in dispute, that the Applicant is


not the owner of the Spa. A perusal of the Leave and License Agreement


dated 12th June, 2013 entered into between M/s.Arham Associates, through


its partner Mr.Manish Mansukhlal Shah and M/s.Aura Wellness and


Healing Services Private Limited, through its Director Mr.Malik Kashiff


Khan prima facie shows that the said Spa was being run byMr.Malik


Kashiff Khan.             The Applicant was granted interim protection in the


Anticipatory Bail Application filed by him, which                was subsequently


vacated and thereafter the application was withdrawn. The Applicant is in


custody since 20th April, 2019. Charge-sheet has already been filed in the


said case.




7.                 Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the


applicant is enlarged on bail on the following terms and conditions:-


                                      ORDER


i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more local sureties in the like amount;


                                  5/6                            10-ba.1477.2019.doc



ii)         The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station, on the first

Monday of every month, between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., till the conclusion of the trial;

iii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the trial Court as well as to the concerned Police Station, in writing;

iv) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence/contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

v) The Applicant shall co-operate in the conduct of the trial;

vi) An undertaking to the aforesaid clauses (ii) to (v), shall be filed by the Applicant, in the Registry of the trial Court, within two weeks of his release;
              6/6                             10-ba.1477.2019.doc


vii)       It is made clear, that if there is breach of any of the conditions as

stated above, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of Applicant's bail.

8. The Application is allowed and disposed of in above terms.

9. It is made clear, that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this application and the learned Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

10. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Net worth of farzan salim shaikh

11 Best Marketing Strategies to Accelerate Your Business

12 Tips to Grow a business in the State Of Maharashtra