Het Singh Yadav, J.— The applicant, who alleged to have been involved in the Case Crime No. 334 of 2013 under Sections 3,4,5,6 The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Police Station-Chakeri, District-Kanpur Nagar, has moved this application to enlarge her on bail Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, who is a woman has been falsely implicated in this case. The police have concocted the entire theme of this case and foisted a false case on the applicant just to make a show of its good work. In fact, the applicant along with her daughter had gone to the house in search of accommodation on rent. The police, however, raided the house and also falsely implicated the applicant and her daughter in this case. There is no prima facie evidence showing complicity of the applicant in the immoral activities as alleged. The applicant, who is in jail since 16.4.2013, deserves to be enlarged on bail. Learned A.G.A. repudiates the submission made as above and contended that the applicant and her daughter were found engaged in immoral activities and was caught red-handed. Therefore, the bail application deserves to be rejected. Having given my thoughtful considerations to the points pertaining to the nature of accusation, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and severity of punishment raised as above by the learned counsel of both the sides and on perusal of record, I am of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail for the following reasons.:- (a) Except the confessional statement of the applicant made before the police, there is no credible prima facie evidence showing her complicity in the crime. (b) A perusal of the F.I.R. version shows that immoral acts alleged to have been committed by the applicant is hardly punishable under Section 4 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, punishable with two years imprisonment (c) The applicant is a woman having no previous criminal antecedents. (b) A perusal of the F.I.R. version shows that immoral acts alleged to have been committed by the applicant is hardly punishable under Section 4 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, punishable with two years imprisonment (c) The applicant is a woman having no previous criminal antecedents. Let applicant-Smt. Sangeeta Singh involved in the Case Crime No. 334 of 2013 under Sections 3,4,5,6 The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Police Station-Chakeri, District-Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that: (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing in the case and will co-operate in the trial. In case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, he shall immediately give intimation to the court concerned through counsel and request be made to the trial court that she may be permitted to be present through counsel. (iii) She will not mis-use the liberty of the bail and will not repeat any such instance in future. Deviation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. The trial court shall decide the case expeditiously uninfluenced by the observations made herein above. _____________