The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec. 370 of IPC, emphasizing the wide definition of 'exploitation' and the seriousness of offences involving minors.

JUDGMENT

1. Both these applications are decided by this common order order as they arise out of the same investigation and same registered offence.

2. The applicants are seeking their release on bail in connection with C.R.No.28/2021 dtd. 5/2/2021 registered at Amboli police station, Mumbai under Ss. 366-A, 370(1) (4), 372 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Ss. 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Ss. 4, 16, 17 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The applicants were arrested on 5/2/2021 and since then they are in custody. The investigation is over and the charge-sheet has already been filed.

3. Heard Shri Niranjan Mundargi, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri P.H. Gaikwad, learned APP for the State in BA/2262/2021 and Smt. A.A. Takalkar, learned APP for the State in BA/2264/2021.

4. The FIR is lodged by one Police Constable Sunil Shardul. He has stated that he was working with Social Service Branch, Crime Detection, Mumbai. On 4/2/2021, when he was present in the office, he and his colleagues received information that both the applicants were providing minor girls and forcing them in prostitution. They were exploiting those girls. The police arranged to conduct a raid. A bogus customer was arranged. Similarly panchas were called. The bogus customer made a phone call to the applicant Shweta and asked for supply of a minor girl. At that time, the applicant Shweta told him that she had one minor girl and one adult girl. She had quoted the price of Rs.2.00Lakhs for the minor girl and Rs.50,000.00 for the adult one. The customer was asked to come near a show-room at Andheri at about 6:45 p.m.

5. The bogus customer was given Rs.2.00 Lakh in fake currency. The details were noted. Photo-copies were taken. The police party went near the spot. After some time, the applicants approached the bogus customer and panch No.1 with two girls. After that, all of them entered a nearby hotel. At about 6:55 p.m., the bogus customer gave a pre-arranged missed called. The police party entered that hotel. They saw that the bogus customer, panch No.1, two applicants and two girls were sitting there. The bogus customer pointed out to both the applicants and informed that the fake currency-notes bundle was taken by the applicant Shweta. The girls gave their names and details. Search of the applicants' persons was carried out. The applicant Babita was having Aadhaar card of one of the victims, wherein the date of birth of that girl was mentioned as 18/4/2005. She told the police party that Aadhaar card was kept as the age proof for giving to the customers to show that the girl was a minor girl. The police party made enquiries with both the victims. One of the victims, who was 15 years of age as per the Aadhaar card that was with the applicant Babita, informed the police that the applicant Babita was her close relative from maternal side. The victim had come to Mumbai on 4/1/2021. On the day of raid, both the applicants had brought her to that hotel for supplying her to a customer for prostitution. The other victim informed the police that the applicant Babita was her mother and both the victims were brought to the hotel by both the applicants for prostitution. She was to get Rs.50,000.00. Further enquiries made by the police revealed that the applicant Babita was to keep Rs.25,000.00. Other share of Rs.25,000.00 was to be given to one Sujata and remaining Rs.1,50,000.00 was to be taken by the applicant Shweta. The police party also took screen-shots of the photos sent by these applicants. Recording all this, the FIR was lodged.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Sec. 370 of IPC is not attracted. Both the victims were adults and they had willingly participated in these acts. He submitted that the school record shows that one of the victims who was allegedly a minor, was an adult and she was born in the year 1998 as is reflected in her school record. He submitted tha