SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(All) 2067

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Saroj Bala J.
RAM BABOO
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 07 August 2006
Criminal Bail Application No. 16043 of 2006

The absence of evidence of sexual acts and the lack of involvement of the customers or girls in such acts were crucial in the court's decision to grant bail.

Headnote:

Bail - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - The court considered the absence of evidence of sexual acts and the fact that none of the customers or girls were found involved in sexual act as grounds for granting bail to the applicant.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant was indicted in a case under Sections 3/4/5/6/7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The defense argued that the applicant had been falsely implicated and that the compliance of Section 15(3) of the Act was not made at the time of search. The prosecution argued that the applicant and co-accused were arrested at the spot, and cash was recovered from their possession.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that none of the customers or girls were found involved in sexual act, and therefore considered it to be a fit case for bail.

Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged involvement of the applicant in the immoral trafficking and the compliance of legal provisions during the search.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of evidence of sexual acts and the lack of involvement of the customers or girls in such acts.

Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application for the applicant indicted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

SAROJ BALA, J.

This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Ram Baboo indicted in case crime No. 148 of 2006 under Sections 3/4/5/6/7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, P. S. Gandhi Park District Aligarh.

2. Heard Shri Kuldeep Saxena, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and have perused the record.

3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that Jaiveer, Meena and Km. Suman are the tenants of the applicant whereas Arvind is a petty shopkeeper. The learned Counsel submitted that all of them assembled at the residence of the applicant in connection with the settlement of the marriage of Km. Suman. The learned Counsel submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated. According to learned Counsel the compliance of Section 15 (3) of the Act was not made at the time of search. The learned Counsel pointed out that none of them are found involved in sexual act.

4. The learned A. G. A. argued that applicant and co-accused were arrested at the spot. The recovery of cash of Rs. 800/- was made from the possession of the applicant and girls.

5. I have taken into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties.

6. The offences are triable by the Magistrate Ist class. None of the customers or girls were found involved in sexual act. In view of these facts, I consider it to be a fit case for bail.

7. Let the applicant Ram Baboo indicted in case crime No. 148 of 2006 under Sections 3/4/5/6/7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, P. S. Gandhi Park District Aligarh, be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

Bail application allowed.


.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top