Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
G.P. Srivastva, J.
Poornima wife of Rajendra and Afsana wife of Kaleem (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application 4946 of 2006
Decided On : 04 April 2006
Criminal Misc. Bail Application 4946 Of 2006
Bail - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act - The court granted bail to the applicants involved in the offence under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and other sections of the Indian Penal Code, based on lack of specific evidence and allegations against them.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants were involved in the offence under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the applicants were involved in compelling and inducing minor girls for prostitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no specific evidence or allegations against the applicants. The witnesses' statements did not assign any specific role to the applicants, and there was no description of their activities. The court also considered legal pleas related to the search of premises.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants should be granted bail despite their involvement in the alleged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of specific evidence and allegations against the applicants, as well as legal pleas related to the search of premises, in granting bail to the applicants.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicants, requiring them to furnish personal bonds with two sureties each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/court concerned.
( 1 ) THESE are the applications by the applicants Lalita, Rajesh, Kali, Lalloo, Abdul Hameed, Tara, poornima and Afsana who are involved in the offence under Sections 3/4/5/6/8/9 The Immoral traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 Act and Section 323, 504, 506, 109, 117, 366a, 373 I. P. C. PS. Manduadeeh, District Varanasi.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case on 25/10/2005 one Ajit Singh, Chairman, Swayam Sevi sanstha Guria) received an information from his wife Smt. Santwanta Manju that in red light area of Shivdaspur some minor girls are detained by Rahmat, Tulsi and Lalloo. They induced the minor girls for the purpose of prostitution and use them for illicit Intercourse and earn their livelihood. They recovered 31 girls from the house of Rahmat and Tulsi and got an FIR registered on 25/10/2005 at 21. 30 hours against Rahmat, Tulsi, Lallu and Afzal. Later on during the investigation the names of the applicants and some other persons came into light and they were involved in compelling to induce and seduce to illegal intercourse with some another person for prostitution under the management of brothel carried by the applicants.
( 3 ) IT is argued by learned Counsel for the applicants that the applicants were neither named in the first Information Report nor arrested on the spot nor there is any evidence against them.
( 4 ) IT has been further argued by learned Counsel for the complainant that the name of the applicants came in the statement of Raj Kumar, Rahisa Khatun, Manju and Chandra.
( 5 ) 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 have 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 allegation of keeping brothel against the applicants. There is no specific evidence regarding inducing or taking a specified person for the sake of the prostitution.
( 6 ) 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.
( 7 ) IN the circumstances I am of the opinion that the applicants deserve to bail.
( 8 ) LET the applicants Poornima, Afsana, Tara, Abdul Hameed, Lalloo, Kali, Rajesh and Lalita be enlarged on bail their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/court concerned in Case Crime No. 274 of 2005 under Section 3/4/5/6/8/9 The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Section 323, 504, 506, 109, 117, 366a, 373, I. P. C. PS. Manduadeeh, District Varanasi.
. .
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
