::1::
Criminal Bail Application No.737/2022
MHCC020042022022
Received on : 01.04.2022
Registered on : 01.04.2022
Decided on : 02.05.2022
Duration :
DD MM YY
01 01 00
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.737 OF 2022
IN
C.R. NO.246 OF 2022
Mr. Jeevanand Thangaraj
Age : 31 years, Occ. : Business
R/a : 1/266, Sher E Panjab
Chakala, MIDC, Andheri (East)
Mumbai – 400 093.

…Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Santacruz Police
Station, Mumbai)
…Respondent
Appearances:
Advocate Mr. Nikhil Mengade for the applicant/Accused.
APP Mrs. Meera Choudhary-Bhosale for the State/Respondent.

::2::
Criminal Bail Application No.737/2022
CORAM : H.H.THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
SONALI P. AGARWAL (C.R. NO. 41)
DATED : 02nd MAY, 2022
:ORDER:
This is bail application filed by accused under section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”)
for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.246/2022 for the
offence punishable under Section 370 (2) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) alongwith Sections 4 and
5 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to
as “PITA” ) registered with Santacruz Police Station.
2.

Heard arguments of learned counsel for accused and learned APP
for the State.
3.

Prosecution has alleged that they raided one Ayour Thai Spa and
in the Spa, applicant/accused Spa Manager and three victims were
found.
4.

It is further alleged that it was found that victims were working
as Spa Therapists and doing prostitution and consideration of such
prostitution used to be taken by the applicant/accused Spa Manager
and 50% out of the same used to be given to the victims. Prosecution
has further alleged that the Spa is taken on rent by co-accused Pritam
Raj and applicant/accused Spa Manager is his real brother. Prosecution
has further alleged that they seized money/documents found at the
premises and accused and victims were brought to the police station
and then this FIR came to be lodged.

::3::
5.

Criminal Bail Application No.737/2022
Applicant/accused has contended that he is doing this business
since last several years and all the premises is fully covered under CCTV
protection. He has contended that victim girls are working in the said
Spa since last several years and they belong to reputed family and they
are certified Spa girls and they have completed Spa Courses from
Nirvana Spa ‘N’ Wellness Center with valid license from Government
institution. He has stated that he is working as a Manager in the Spa.
He has contended that both the victim girls have given affidavits that
accused has not forced them. He has contended that section 370 of IPC
is not applicable in this case and prayed to be released on bail.
6.

Prosecution has filed reply that if accused is released on bail then
he may put pressure on witnesses.

Prosecution has contended that
under the name of Spa, prostitution business is run by the accused.
Prosecution has stated that they have to find out whether there is sex
racket run by accused and objected the bail application.
7.

It appears that prosecution has conducted the raid on
30/03/2022 and on the same day, the victim girls and the
applicant/accused were brought to the police station.

Accused has
produced copies of Registration certificate of the Spa showing that
premises is registered as Spa. He has produced affidavits of the two
victim girls. It appears that in these affidavits, it is stated that they are
working in the Spa since several years as Massage Therapists and they
are Certified Massage Therapists.

They have further stated in the
affidavits that this is false FIR registered and they are doing the job as
per their free will and wish and they have no objection to allow the bail
application.

::4::
8.

Criminal Bail Application No.737/2022
It appears that the raid was conducted on 30/03/2022 but
prosecution has not filed any report stating what is the investigation
regarding the girls are trafficked in any manner. It appears that the
girls were sent in the safe custody of Rescue Foundation.

There is
nothing shown in the investigation as to how the girls are trafficked.
From the documents filed by the accused, it appears that at the raided
premises, Spa is run and victim girls were also found there. But there
are affidavits produced by the victim girls that they were willingly doing
their job and hence, possibility cannot be ruled out that victim girls are
not forced to do any act and they are doing whatever activity as per
their free will.

Therefore, possibility of section 370 of IPC not
applicable, cannot be fully ruled out.
9.

Learned counsel for the accused has cited judgment in the case of
Asiya Anwar Shaikh V/s State of Maharashtra reported in 2019 SCC
OnLine Bom 1235, in which it is held that :
“16. Respondent no. 2 – Victim XYZ is in the said Corrective
Institution i.e. Shaskiya Mahila Rajya Gruh, Prerana Mahila
Wasti Gruh, Baramati, Dist. Pune for more than six months.
Therefore considering the report of probation officer and also
considering the fact that Respondent No. 2 – Victim XYZ has
spent a period of more than six months in the said Corrective
Institution, the ends of justice would be met in the present
case, if the directions are given to release Respondent No. 2 –
Victim XYZ from the said Corrective Institution i.e. Shaskiya
Mahila Rajya Gruh, Prerana Mahila Wasti Gruh, Baramati, Dist.
Pune.”
In the case in hand, the issue is not regarding the release of
victim girls. Therefore, this case law is not applicable to the case in
hand.

::5::
10.

Criminal Bail Application No.737/2022
Learned counsel for the accused has cited judgment in the case of
Kajal Mukesh Singh V/s State of Maharashtra reported in 2020 SCC
OnLine Bom 954, in which it is held that :
“30. In view of this position of law, the victims being major,
their fundamental rights to move from one place to another
place or to reside at a place of their choice and choose their
vocation has to be considered. They cannot be subjected to
unnecessary detention contrary to their wish and should be
asked to reside in the corrective institution. There is no
material on record suggesting that the victims are suffering
from any disability or any diseases so that reasonable
restrictions can be placed. It is not the case of the Police that
setting the victims free would cause some danger to the society.
It is nearly one year that the victims have been detained in the
corrective home against their wish and, therefore, for the
reasons stated herein, they need to be released forthwith.”
The issue in the case in hand is not about release of victim girls
but it is regarding bail to be given to the accused or not. Therefore, this
case law is not applicable to the case in hand.
11.

Learned counsel for the accused has cited judgment in the case of
Eimn Abdulamir Jassem Al-Allaf V/s State of Maharashtra decided by
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in
Criminal Writ Petition no.564 of 2018 on 01st November 2018, in which
it is held that :
“22. The position of other applicants in two applications is
different from petitioner in Writ Petition No. 564 of 2018. The
applicant in Criminal application No. 1081 of 2018 says that he
is also a partner of the business carried out in the name as
Anantara. He has been posed as Manager in the charge-sheet.
He was present in the shop at the time of raid. Statement of
dummy customer would show that he had talked to this
applicant and requested him to supply a girl. Dummy customer
paid amount to this applicant. He was taken to the room by
the girl supplied by this applicant and then he says that the girl
started to undress herself. He had then given the signal to the
::6::
Criminal Bail Application No.737/2022
raiding party. Therefore, this is prima facie evidence against
him. When there is prima facie evidence is produced, the FIR
as well as charge-sheet can not be quashed under Section 482
of Code of Crimnial Procedure. Such a case will not fall under
the guidelines issued in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.
Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court
604. His petition deserves to be dismissed.”
In the case in hand also, applicant/accused is alleged to be
Manager of the Spa. Therefore, this case law is applicable to the case in
hand.
12.

Learned counsel for the accused has cited judgment in the case of
Ms. Ralte Lalrinawmi V/s The State of Maharashtra reported in 2016
SCC OnLine Bom 3527, in which it is held that :
“4. The learned prosecutor oppose the bail application and
submitted that the illegal activities were conducted under the
garb of running massage center in the said Spa. She submitted
that applicant/accused is Indian citizen however the victim
girls were of citizens of Thailand.
5. Perused the first information report, statements of the victim
girls and other documents. All the victim girls are major.
There is no complaint from the girls that there was force to do
prostitution business. Under such circumstances, I pass the
following order :
a) The bail application is allowed.
b) The applicant/accused be enlarged on bail upon furnishing
P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one or two
solvent sureties in the like amount.
c) She shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not
pressurize the witnesses.
d) She shall not indulge into any criminal activity, while on
bail.
e) She shall attend the concerned police station on every
Saturday in the morning between 10.00 am to 11.00 am
till filing of the charge-sheet.
f) Violation of any of the conditions imposed shall amount to
cancellation of bail forthwith.”
::7::
Criminal Bail Application No.737/2022
In the case in hand also, the victim girls are major and
affidavits are produced stating that they are not forced to do any
activity by accused. Therefore, this case law is squarely applicable to
the case in hand.
13.

As discussed above, applicant/accused has produced affidavits of
the victim girls stating that they are not forced by the applicant/accused
for anything. They are major. They were handed over to the Safe
custody of Rescue Foundation. It appears that no purpose will be served
by keeping the accused behind the bars but considering the seriousness
of the offence, it will be proper to release the accused on bail on some
conditions. Hence, following order :ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.737 of 2022 is allowed.

2.

Accused viz. Mr. Jeevanand Thangaraj be released on bail on his
furnishing PB and SB of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand
only), with one or two sureties in the like amount, in
C.R.No.246/2022 for the offences punishable under sections
370 (2), 34 of IPC r/w 4, 5 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
Act, 1956 registered with the Santacruz Police Station on the
following conditions:
(i) Accused is directed not to threaten or cause injury to
informant.
(ii) Accused is directed not to tamper with prosecution evidence.
(iii) Accused shall co-operate with the investigation of Police.
(iv) Accused is directed to attend concerned Police Station on
every Wednesday between 5.00 p.m. to 07.00 p.m. till filing of
final report by police.

::8::
Criminal Bail Application No.737/2022
(v) Accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court
or any police officer.
(vi) Accused shall furnish his mobile number, phone number &
his all addresses including permanent, temporary and postal to
the Investigating Officer and in case of change or discontinue
with the mobile numbers provided to Investigating Officer will
inform new mobile number to Investigating Officer till the
conclusion of the trial. Investigating Officer to submit such
addresses and phone and mobile numbers to the Court.
3.

Criminal Bail Application No.737 of 2022 stands disposed of
accordingly.

Dt. 02.05.2022
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
(SONALI P. AGARWAL)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Bombay
: 02.05.2022
: 02.05.2022
: 02.05.2022
::9::
Criminal Bail Application No.737/2022
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
02/05/2022 at 05.43 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Varsha Deepak Chowdhri
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H.H.J. Sonali P. Agarwal
Room No.
Room No.41)
Date
of
Pronouncement
Judgment/Order
of 02/05/2022
Judgment/Order signed by P.O.on
02/05/2022
Judgment/Order uploaded on
02/05/2022
(Court