IMPORTANT POINT
Question as regards grant of bail, should be considered having regard to gravity of offence wherewith the accused had been charged.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant is a Non-Governmental Organization. It came to learn that some children had been detained in the ‘red light area’ at Varanasi. It approached the police for their rescue. More than thirty young girls and children were rescued. A complaint was filed by the appellant in respect thereof.

3. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the girls and on the basis thereof came to the conclusion that many more persons were involved in the racket. Some of them were arrested.

4. The Investigating Officer upon completion of the investigation filed a charge sheet under Sections 5, 6 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”) and Sections 323, 504, 506, 117, 366-A and 373 of the Indian Penal Code against 23 persons. Another charge sheet was filed under Sections 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Act and Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against 13 persons.

5. The respondents who were not named in the First Information Report filed applications for grant of bail before the learned Sessions Judge. The said bail applications were opposed by the Assistant District Government Counsel contending that the private respondents had been purchasing girls for the purpose of facilitating immoral traffic. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the said applications for bail, inter alia, stating:

“...It is prima facie evident from the investigation carried out in this manner that these people bring the customers to get indulged in forceful immoral traffic with the minor girls and recover the charges in lieu thereof and have made their main business and brought the minor girls at the said place on having purchased them. In this reference only on having conducted the raid by the police and other social service institutions on the stated date 31 minor girls have been recovered from the houses of Rahmat, Tulsi, etc. Therefore, commissioning of the offence under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act by these people becomes evident. From the said acts of the applicants/ agents instigates to commit the said offence and these people enhance the immoral traffic of prostitution which is the act against the society. In case the applicants are released, these people would again indulge in these acts because they have no other business. As far as the question of Sheikh Mohammad, applicant is a Tempo driver, is concerned, no evidence has been produced on his behalf. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case in my opinion no proper ground is found to release the accused persons on bail. Therefore, all the above-stated four bail applications submitted by the applicants/ accused are rejected.”

6. The High Court, however, by reason of the impugned judgment, allowed the said applications for bail on furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, stating:

“...It is pertinent to mention that in the statement of the aforesaid witnesses though the name of some of the applicants emerged but no specific role has been assigned to them nor there is any description of their activities in the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Moreover, no statement of these witnesses was got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which could give weight to their testimony. There is no specific evidence regarding inducing or taking a specific person for the sake of the prostitution.

Besides that some legal pleas were also taken, i.e., search of the premises can be made by a special police officer which is very relevant for the purpose of bail.

In the circumstances, I am of the opinion, that the applicants deserve to bail.”

7. Ms. Aparna Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would contend that the girls who were victims had wrongly been made accused and in that view of the matter as also otherwise the High Court committed a serious error in granting bail inter alia on the