ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rahul Dholakia appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.J.K.Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11199012250810/2025 registered with City B-Division Police Station, Bharuch for the offence punishable under Sections 143(1)(d), 143(1)(f), 143(2), 143(3), 144(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 54 of the BNS, Sections 3, 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Section 21 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. While the main allegation in the FIR is serious inasmuch as women from Bangladesh of meager means having been brought to India by luring to give them employment and whereas, later they were pushed into the business of prostitution.

ii. The allegation against the present applicant being that he was running a brothel house.

iii.It would appear in this regard, more particularly, considering the statements of three of the witnesses named in the affidavit of the investigating officer, with whom the applicant is connected, that the victims had come to the brothel house of the present applicant of their own volition and whereas, the present applicant is not stated to be connected with the accused no.1 or is stated to be connected with the principal offence of trafficking.

iv. While learned APP would submit that the present applicant may have been aware about the fact that the victims did not belong to India and they belong to Bangladesh and whereas, there might be some monetary transactions between the present applicant and the main accused, yet, having perused the statements of the victims, it would prima facie appear that the victims had gone to the brothel house of the present applicant of other own volition, more particularly, the victims in their statement initially stating about the part with regard to the victims having been trafficked and whereas, as regards the present applicant, it is mentioned that having come to know that there was a brothel house being run by the present applicant, the victims had gone there voluntarily.

v. This Court has also considered the fact that the present applicant is in custody since 13.12.2025, charge-sheet having been filed and the applicant not having any antecedent whatsoever.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the op