WP-178-2020, 1688-2020.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1688 OF 2020

1.

Mohhammad Arshad Sajid Ali

Age: 39 Years, Occu.: Service,

R/o. Chikhalthana MIDC, Aurangabad

2.

Amol s/o Damu Shejul

Age: 29 Years, Occu.: Service,

R/o. Mhada Colony, Mukundwadi,

Aurangabad

… Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

… Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1708 OF 2020

1.

Dnyaneshwar Sarjearao Jarhad

Age: 42 years, Occ.: Business,

R/o. Railway Station Road,

Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.

… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

… Respondent

……….

Mr. A. K. Bhosale, Advocate for petitioners in both the writ petitions.

Ms. V. S. Choudhary, APP for the respondent – State.

……….

CORAM

:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

Reserved on

: 16.03.2021

Pronounced on : 08.06.2021

JUDGMENT :-

.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with

consent of both the parties.

(1)

WP-178-2020, 1688-2020.odt

2.

Present writ petitions have been preferred by original accused

Nos.7, 8 and 9 in Sessions Case No.209 of 2020 challenging the order of

rejection of their applications for discharge under Section 227 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure below Exhibit-11 and 16 respectively by

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 15.12.2020. The

petitioners have invoked the constitutional powers of this Court under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India and inherent powers under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge those

impugned orders.

3.

Heard learned Advocate Mr. A. K. Bhosale for petitioners in both

the writ petitions and learned APP Ms. V. S. Choudhary for the

respondent – State.

4.

It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the petitioners that

the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Accused Nos.7

to 9 came to be arrested on 08.12.2019. The FIR was lodged by

Madhukar Sawant, Police Inspector of Crime Branch, Aurangabad for

the offences punishable under Section 370(a)(2) of Indian Penal Code,

Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956

(herinafter referred to as the ‘

PITA Act’), Section 67 and 67(a) of

Information Technology Act, 65(K) of the Bombay Prohibition Act

against about 10 accused persons. Accused No.10 is still absconding.

(2)

WP-178-2020, 1688-2020.odt

Accused Nos.1 to 5 were also arrested on the same day i.e. 08.12.2019,

whereas accused No.6 came to be arrested on 11.12.2019. Accused

No.2 had filed application seeking regular bail before this Court bearing

Bail Application No.366 of 2020, which came to be rejected on

07.08.2020. Though she was not party to these criminal writ petitions,

when said applicant i.e. original accused No.2 had approached the

Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Miscellaneous Application No.656 of

2021 in Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.4420 of 2020, initially the

Sessions Case was expedited, however, by order dated 29.04.2021, time

to dispose of Sessions Case was extended by one year. In that order

itself, it was observed that this Court should decide these two criminal

writ petitions expeditiously.

5.

Learned Advocate for the petitioners vehemently submitted that if

the allegations are considered, then only offence under PITA Act, that

too by showing accused Nos.7 to 9 i.e. present petitioners as customers,

have been alleged. Therefore, we need not go into the other allegations.

While deciding the applications, the learned Additional Sessions Judge

has come to the conclusion that offence under Section 5(1)(a) of PITA

Act can be said to have been committed by the present petitioners and

thereupon on 24.12.2020, vide Exhibit-31, charge has been framed

against the present petitioners for the offence punishable under Section

(3)

WP-178-2020, 1688-2020.odt

5(1) of the PITA Act. It has been prima facie held that the act attributed

to the present petitioners would show that they have “procured” the

victim girls. It has been observed