Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 1679
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.S. Karnik, J.
Sarfaraz Khan - Appellant
Versus
Police Inspector - Respondent
Criminal Application (Bail) No. 338 of 2023
Decided On : 05-06-2023
Rohan Desai, Advocate, B. Samant, Advocate, S.G. Bhobe, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial progress can justify the granting of bail, even in serious criminal cases.
Headnote:
BAIL - IMMORAL TRAFFIC - The court granted bail to the applicant, an accused in a case involving human trafficking and prostitution, after considering the lengthy custody period of over two and a half years and the lack of progress in the trial due to the victim's absence. The court emphasized the need for a timely trial and imposed stringent conditions to ensure the applicant's compliance and prevent tampering with evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, accused no.2, was arrested on 6/1/2021 for alleged involvement in human trafficking and prostitution under Sec. 370 IPC and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The complaint indicated that the applicant facilitated the victim's transportation for prostitution against her will.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the applicant's lengthy custody and the absence of progress in the trial, particularly due to the victim's failure to appear. It acknowledged the applicant's prior criminal record but considered the circumstances of the case.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the duration of custody and the status of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the prolonged custody without trial progress warranted bail, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the need to balance the applicant's rights with the seriousness of the charges.
Final Decision: The application for bail was granted with specific conditions to ensure the applicant's compliance and the integrity of the trial process.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant Shri Desai and learned Public Prosecutor Shri Bhobe for the respondent-State.
2. The applicant is the original accused no.2, who was arrested on 6/1/2021 in view of a complaint dtd. 6/1/2021 lodged by the Officer of the Women's Police Station.
3. There are in all three accused. The offences alleged are under Sec. 370 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Ss. 4, 5, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, in respect of Sessions Case (ORS) No. 37 of 2021, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa, Goa. A reading of the complaint dtd. 6/1/2021 reveals that the Head Constable Umesh Desai struck a deal as a decoy customer who contacted the accused no.1 on her mobile phone. The accused no.1 agreed to send one girl for sexual activity on payment of cash amount. The raiding party was informed about the deal. The victim disclosed that she was brought by accused no.1 and her husband Sahed Khan @ Ravi i.e. accused no.2, who dropped them in Ertiga car on instructions of the present applicant and accused no.2 for prostitution activities against her will and wish.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is past antecedent against the present applicant of a similar nature. The applicant was released on bail and while on bail, the present offence is registered against him. No doubt, there is a criminal antecedent of a similar nature against the present applicant. It needs to be considered that the applicant is in custody for almost two and half years.
5. My attention is invited to the order dtd. 6/9/2022 passed by this Court while disposing of the bail application earlier filed by the applicant. The order reads thus : " P.C:
<WXY>1. In compliance with the earlier order, learned Counsel for the applicant has placed the chargesheet on record. 2. The applicant who is charged under Sec. 370 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Ss. 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is praying for bail.
3. After this application was heard for some time, the learned Counsel for the applicant fairly states that the applicant would intend to withdraw this application with liberty to file a fresh application at the appropriate time, as the applicant's primary grievance is that the State has taken substantial time to examine the victim in the pending trial.
4. In these circumstances the learned Sessions Judge is requested to look into such issues so that the trial is not delayed any further and more particularly, taking into consideration the fact that the pending trial the applicant is in custody from 6/1/2021.
5. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
6. Disposed of."</WXY>
6. I have perused the roznama. The roznama reveals that the witnesses are not remaining present on the dates fixed by the trial Court. The roznama further reveals that the victim has been duly served by the Investigating Officer but she is also not remaining present.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that efforts are being made to produce the victim for examination.
8. Considering that the applicant is in custody since more than two and half years and that pursuant to the order dtd. 6/9/2022 passed by this Court there has been no progress in the trial with the victim not remaining present to depose, the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude. Taking an over all view of the matter, the applicant can be released on bail by imposing some stringent conditions.
9. The applicant is a resident of Ponda Taluka. The activities alleged against the applicant are in the area of Bardez Taluka and Pernem Taluka.
10. The application for bail is granted in the following terms :
<WXY>(i) The applicant is released on bail upon furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25, 000.00 with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
(ii) The applicant shall not make any attempt to tamper with the evidence and/or threaten the witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall atte
