IMPORTANT POINT
.

A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.

1. This is a petition for bail by the petitioner Sushma @ Simmi in FIR No. RC-5(S)/2012/SCB/CHG dated 12.7.2012, registered under Sections 354, 376, 342, 323, 506, 109, 374, 366A, 372, 418, 420, 468, 471, 217, 218 r/w 120-B IPC, Sections 3, 4, 5 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Section 16 of the Bonder Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and Sections 23 & 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

2. In support of the petition, Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and is a young woman of 26 years of age. Inviting my attention to proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., he contended that being a woman, she is entitled to bail particularly because she is in jail since the date of her arrest, namely, 10.5.2012 and now period of over four and a half years has already elapsed. According to him, the evidence of some minor girls has been recorded before the trial court and the said evidence does not show any major role on the part of the petitioner to presume that she would be convicted for imprisonment for life. On the contrary, according to him, the petitioner having already undergone about 4 years of incarceration, she would be entitled to grant of bail since she has completed almost half of the sentence which could, if at all ultimately, is awarded to her even if the case of the prosecution is presumed to have been proved.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the CBI took me through the evidence that has been recorded by the Special Judge and I have gone through the same carefully with their assistance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then contended that the prosecution allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner used to take photographs of the minor girls in nude condition, is also prima facie negatived in view of the CFL report in respect of the Laptop, computer, etc. recovered from her. According to him, thus the only allegation that remains on record is that she had abetted the commission of offences by the male accused persons and looking to the punishment that is provided for the abetment, the petitioner would be entitled to grant of bail. He then contended that the prosecution has cited as many as 185 witnesses, out of whom only 55 have been examined during the last few years. The petitioner cannot therefore be denied the valuable right to be at liberty and therefore, he prayed for grant of bail. According to him, the main accused Jaswant, Jai Bhagwan and Satish are already in jail who are stated to have committed rape from time to time on the minor children. Jaswanti, the main accused running 'Apna Ghar' is also in jail.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for CBI opposed the petition for grant of bail tooth and nail and submitted that the petitioner is not at all entitled to grant of bail for the reasons more than one. According to him, earlier Jaswant had applied for grant of bail which was dismissed on 11.3.2014 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the Bench had directed the CBI to ensure correct addresses of the witnesses and see that the trial is completed expeditiously. The petitioner had withdrawn her bail petitions. He then submitted that mere delay in the trial is no ground to grant bail as held by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director, 2007(1) RCR (Crl.) 166 and Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director, 2008(1) RCR (Crl.) 233 and, therefore, the submission that bail be granted because of incarceration for four and a half years, should not be accepted. Learned counsel for CBI then contended that the mother of the petitioner, namely, Jaswanti, who is the main person who had been running Apna Ghar, in which minor girl children were housed and were raped by male members of the family of Jaswanti and the petitioner is equally guilty of the serious offences. He then submitted that she thus wilfully aided the commiss