Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2020
Author: Shailendra Shukla
Bench: Shailendra Shukla
... 1 ... M.Cr.C.No.41415/2020
HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE
S.B : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI SHAILENDRA SHUKLA
M.Cr.C. No.41415/2020
(AMIT SONI -v/s- STATE OF M.P.)
Indore dated :- 11.11.2020
Heard the learned counsel through video conferencing.
Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior counsel with Shri
Anirudh Gokhale, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Archana Kher, learned Public Prosecutor for the
Non-applicant/State.
ORDER
Submissions were made on the first bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant is being implicated in Crime No.496/2019, registered at police station Palasia, Indore, for the offence punishable under Sections 370(2), 370(3), 370(a)(2), 346, 201, 120-B, 34 of IPC, under Sections 3,4,6,7 of PETA Act and under Sections 22/38 of M.P. Excise Act, 1915. He is in jail since 4.12.2019.
2. While learned Senior counsel for the applicant has submitted number of documents regarding outcome of the past antecedents registered against the applicant, learned Public Prosecutor for State has referred to the portions of the case diary, which is elaborate and therefore, the order shall be passed after duly perusing these documents and case diary. Order to follow.
3. Later on
4. As per prosecution story, on receiving written complaint by one Harbhajan Singh to the effect that some ... 2 ... M.Cr.C.No.41415/2020 illegal activities including trafficking of ladies and their physical exploitation were going on in hotel called My Home, Indore, the Senior Police Officers strategiesed their planning as per which a team of Government Executive Officers and Police Officers raided the aforesaid My Home Hotel in the night intervening between 30.11.2019 and 1.12.2019. When the aforesaid team arrived at hotel for raid, they were resisted by the management team of the hotel and amongst these persons, the present applicant (Amit Soni) was also there who had sought to prevent the team from entering the hotel. The applicant is son of co-accused Jitendra Soni, who was one of the Directors of hotel called My Home. Due to such resistance offered, the police could not enter the premises promptly and delay gave an opportunity to other co-accused persons such as Jitendra Soni etc to escape from the premises.
5. Later on, the police raided the premises and recovered 67 ladies who had been trafficked from various parts of the country and it was revealed that they were being exploited by the management and were made to perform obscene dances in the hotel in front of the customers and were also being physically exploited. The FIR was thereafter lodged in police station Palasia, Indore and the accused applicant was arrested.
6. In the application, it has been stated that there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the present applicant was in any manner connected with the crime; that applicant was not holding any position in the management of My Home.
... 3 ... M.Cr.C.No.41415/2020
7. Learned Senior counsel has stated that the Directors of My Home were Hukumchand, Mahendra Soni and Jitendra Soni whereas, the present applicant Amit Soni was managing the affairs of another hotel called Best Western Hotel. The investigating agency has deliberately and malafide involved the entire family of Jitendra Soni who is the father of the present applicant and on this ground bail has been sought.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted strong reservations on the application and has submitted that Amit Soni was present on the spot when the raiding team arrived which itself shows involvement of applicant in day to day activities at My Home. She draws the Court's attention to the statements of Chotulal Pasi, who was one of the raiding team members who has stated that Amit Soni prevented the raiding team from entering the raiding team in the premises due to which Jitu Soni could escape. She has also drawn the Court's attention to the statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C of Madhuri Vishwas and Poonam Devagana who have stated that Amit Soni was involved in running the hotel and other activities.
9. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant has responded by stating that in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C none of the inmates ladies who were recovered from the premises have made any allegation against Amit Soni to the effect that the applicant was actively involved in trafficking and promoting their physical exploitation; that the police on receiving the information did not care to record the Roznamchasana and without obtaining any search warrant, had raided the premises against the provisions of law. He has ... 4 ... M.Cr.C.No.41415/2020 further stated that after receiving the written complaint, FIR ought to have been recorded, but the FIR has been recorded at 11.58 PM whereas the raid was conducted at 11.30 PM.
10. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, the criminal antecedents of the applicant were also discussed. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that number of criminal antecedents have been registered against the present applicant and has prayed for rejection of the bail application because the applicant is a known criminal.
11. Refuting such allegations, it has been mentioned by learned Senior counsel for the applicant that all the criminal cases have been registered against the applicant after 30.11.2019, ie., after the raid in the present case was conducted and in all such matters bail has been granted to the applicant. He has filed the copies of bail orders and the copies of FIR registered against the applicant. It appears that as many as 16 cases have been registered against the applicant and the date of registration is from 30.11.2019 to 28.12.2019 and that applicant has been released on bail in all the cases. The bail orders have also been submitted for perusal. Learned Senior counsel has submitted that in the present case also the charge sheet has been filed and in view of the submissions made earlier the applicant be released on bail.
12. Both the learned counsel were heard and the case diary was perused.
13. The members of the raiding team such as Manish Khatri (ASP) and Ramesh Sharma (SDM) have named the ... 5 ... M.Cr.C.No.41415/2020 present applicant as amongst those who had resisted the entry of the team members. However, this fact has not been denied by the prosecution that the applicant is not one of the Directors of hotel My Home.
14. A perusal of the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C of the lady inmates show that the ladies whose names have been referred to at Page Nos.207, 205, 201, 197, 193, 189, 179, 278, 262, 259, 239, 233, 228 and 209 have stated that they know Amit Soni and have named other persons of the management of the hotel such as Mahendra Soni, Jitu Soni, Rajendra, Rao etc. However, perusal of their statements show that in the day to day activities of My Home, involving exploitation of inmates, forcing them to perform dance and other activities including threatening the inmates, Jitendra Soni and the managers of the hotel were mainly involved, and these included Mr. Rao, Hukumchand Soni and others and it is these persons who had forced the inmates to execute documents on stamp paper in which it was averred that the inmates had joined at My Home of their own free will and were not being pressurized. As far as the present applicant is concerned, the inmates have only stated that they know Amit Soni, but his active involvement in the management of My Home and harassment and physical exploitation of the inmates has not been referred to by any of the female inmates in their 161 Cr.P.C statements. The manner in which the applicant resisted the police entry in the hotel shows that he might have been having knowledge about the activities which used to take place at My Home, but his day to day involvement in the management and such ... 6 ... M.Cr.C.No.41415/2020 activities is prima facie not apparent on perusal of the 161 Cr.P.C statements. The statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C have been made by one or two inmates involving applicant Amit Soni such as Madhuri Vishwas and Poonam Devangana, but in their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C active involvement of the applicant is missing.
15. After due consideration, without commenting on merits of the case, application for grant of bail filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C is being allowed. It is ordered that on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and on surrendering the original passport (provided he has one), the applicant shall be released on bail, for his regular appearance before the concerned trial court on all the dates, as may be fixed in this behalf by the said Court, till the completion of trial. He shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
16. It is made very clear that after the release, the applicant shall not indulge in threatening or influencing any of the witness and shall not indulge in any criminal activities. The applicant is directed to mark his presence before the concerned police station for a period of one year on the first Monday of every month between 10.00 AM to 12.00 PM. In the event of violation of any of the terms and conditions of the order by the applicant, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the applicant.
17. With the aforesaid, the bail application filed under ... 7 ... M.Cr.C.No.41415/2020 Section 439 of Cr.P.C, stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
18. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for its compliance.
19. C.c. as per rules.
(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE SS/-
Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 2020.11.18 15:11:23 +05'30'