Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devkaran vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 March, 2016
MCRC-2070-2016
(DEVKARAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
02-03-2016
Shri R.S.Bais, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy.A.G. for the non-applicant/State.
ORDER
This is first bail application under 439 of Cr.P.C.. The applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No.687/15 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 3,4,5 & 7 of Immoral Trafficking Act.
2. As per prosecution case, on receipt of report on 17.12.2015 search was made at Hotel Nirmal, where 94 bulk ltr. illicit liquor and two girls in suspicious condition were found, and some persons seeing the police flew away. Both the girls disclosed that they were brought to Hotel for illicit act. They also disclosed that at the behest of applicant Devkaran, agent Shivnarayan brought 2 girls at Hotel Nirmal for prostitution.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated. Applicant is a government servant, hotel Nirmal was in possession of the applicant some time prior to the alleged incident and at the relevant time it was not in possession of the applicant, the applicant is under custody w.e.f. 9.2.2016, the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant.
4. Learned Dy.A.G. appearing for non-applicant/State opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.
5. Perused the case diary. Ameen in his case diary statement has stated that he had constructed the Dhaba, thereafter he rented the Dhaba from 15.2.2014 to 15.2.2018 at the rent of Rs.40,000/- per month and Pagdi of Rs.3 Lacs to Devkaran S/o Devisingh. Shekhar also stated that Devkaran had taken the Dhaba on rent and same was running as Nirmal Hotel Dhaba. He has stated that after expiry of the agreement the Dhaba was given on rent to Pappu and copy of agreement is available on record which shows that Devkaran had taken the Dhaba on rent from 15.2.2014 to 15.2.2018. Taking into consideration the material available against the applicant and the nature of allegation, this court is of the view that applicant is not entitled for bail.
M.Cr.C. is accordingy dismissed.
(D.K. PALIWAL) JUDGE