ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for enlarging the Applicant on anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11191004230756/2023 registered with Amraiwadi Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 364(a), 366(a), 368, 376 (3), 376(2)(AN), 354(a)(1)(i)(ii), 323, 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5(L), 6, 7, 8, 17, 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

2. Heard learned Advocate Smit Shah for the Applicant and learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the Respondent - State.

3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection the aforesaid FIR and in this connection the earlier application filed by the Applicant before the learned Sessions Court came to be dis-allowed. He submitted that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present offence. The present Applicant has not been named as an accused in the FIR, however, her involvement in the offence was found during the course of investigation. No specific role whatsoever has been attributed to the Applicant for commission of the offence in question. She has been arraigned as an accused simply because she happens to be the neighbour of the main accused. There was no motive for the present Applicant for commission of the offence in question. The present Applicant is a lady aged 45 Years who is a housewife. He therefore submitted that considering the facts stated in the Application, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He submitted that the present Applicant is alleged to have committed a serious offence of human trafficking. Learned APP has therefore prayed that the present Application may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. The present FIR came to be lodged by the first informant on 2.11.2023 against the unknown persons. During the course of investigation of the said FIR, the involvement of the present Applicant in the offence had been revealed. As per the FIR, the minor daughter of the first informant had been abducted by unknown persons with an intention to commit rape on her. The victim daughter of the first informant had been traced out during the course of investigation and her statement has already been recorded by the investigating agency. Upon perusal of the said statement, it appears that she was abducted by the co-accused Bhola on 1.11.2023 from outside the school where she had gone to drop her brother. She was taken in an auto rickshaw by the said co-accused Bhola and she was taken to some hotel in the Geeta Mandir area. Thereafter, the said co- accused Bhola brought the present Applicant in his auto rickshaw to the hotel and from there the co-accused Bhola, the present Applicant and another lady with the victim had gone to Uttar Pradesh, where, the said co-accused Bhola had subjected her to sexual intercourse against her will. The present Applicant was living all throughout with the prosecutrix. She used to frequently make phone calls to the said co-accused Bhola and was asking him to send money or else she would sell the prosecutrix. Thus, from the statement of the prosecutrix, it appears that she was abducted by the co-accused Bhola with an intention to subject her to human trafficking and the present Applicant had also played an active role for commission of the offence in question.

6. Learned APP has also produced a copy of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein also she has narrated the same facts as narrated by her in her statement before the police.

7. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, no case is made out. The Applica