1 of 4 3.BA.1157.2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1157 OF 2021

Zubaida Deen Mahammad Shaikh

Applicant

versus

The State of Maharashtra

Respondent

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1623 OF 2021

IN

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1157 OF 2021

Sharmin Sharif Pathan

Intervenor

In the matter between :

Zubaida Deen Mahammad Shaikh

Applicant

versus

The State of Maharashtra

Respondent

Mr.Aniket Vagal, Advocate for applicant in Bail Application.

Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP, for Respondent-State.

None for applicant in Interim Application.

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE : 2^nd July 2021

PC :

1.

This is an application for bail under Section 439 of Code of

Criminal Procedure in connection with CR No.12 of 2020 registered

with Gorai Police Station for offences under Sections 366(a), 370(5),

372, 120B of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.. The FIR was

lodged on 8^th March 2020.

2.

According to prosecution, the complainant received

information that person named Ibrahim and his associate Zubeida

2 of 4 3.BA.1157.2021.doc

are supplying minor girls to customers for prostitution at guest house

situated at Manori. The complainant contacted the Social Security

Branch, Crime Branch, Mumbai and provided above information to

them. Police decided to raid the premises where the activities are

being conducted. Decoy customer was arranged and instructions

were given to him. The decoy customer contacted Ibrahim on his

cell phone and told him to provide the girl for prostitution. Ibrahim

told him to visit the guest house at Manori and also quoted amount.

The raiding party then proceeded to the said guest house. The decoy

customer and others visited the guest house. They found four girls

with one male and one female at the guest house. The name of the

person was Ibrahim and other woman was his associate. The

premises was searched. The applicant is allegedly the associate of

Ibrahim. Accused were arrested. The victims were rescued. Their

statements were recorded. The age of victims was 17, 16, 17 and 26

respectively.

3.

The accused were remanded to custody from time to time. On

completing investigation charge sheet was filed. The applicant

preferred application for bail before Special Court under POCSO Act.

The said application was rejected by order dated 23^rd April 2020.

Thereafter another application was preferred by the applicant for

bail, which was also rejected by order dated 22^nd May 2020.

4.

Learned advocate for applicant submitted that applicant is

lady. She is in custody from 8^th March 2020. Although more than

one year has passed, trial has not commenced. Section 372 of IPC is

not attracted. According to prosecution the decoy customer had

conversation with co-accused Ibrahim. The amount was handed over

3 of 4 3.BA.1157.2021.doc

to Ibrahim. The conversation about providing minor victims was

entered with Ibrahim. Section 370 of IPC is not attracted. Except

presence of the applicant at the premises which was raided, no other

overt act is attributed to the applicant. Investigation is completed

and charge sheet is filed. The applicant is lady aged about 60 years.

5.

Learned APP submitted that offences are serious. The victims

were minors. The applicant was involved in crime. She was present

at the place of incident. Three cases were registered against

applicant in past.

6.

The complainant had allegedly received information that

accused are providing minor girls for prostitution. The complainant

received contact number of Ibrahim. The decoy customer had

conversation with Ibrahim. The customer was called at the place of

incident by Ib