1
BA No.255/2024
MHCC020018032024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.255 OF 2024
Mrs. Sonam Nareshsingh Thakur
@ Mrs. Sonam Atun Singh
Aged 36 years, Hindu, Indian Inhabitant,
R/at. 917/2, Narayan Bihar Colony,
Opp. Bombay Hospital, Bhavani Prasad
Tiwari Ward, Baghaji, Jabalpur,
Madhya Pradesh482 001.
Presently residing at Room No.1703,
Minal Hill, Vartak Nagar, Thane
(Presently lodged at Byculla ladies prison)
..Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Mulund
Police Station, Mumbai in
C.R. No.39/2024).
..Respondent
Appearance :
Advocate Mr. Sanjay Gaonkar for the applicant.
APP Mrs. Rashmi Tendulkar for the respondent/State.
CORAM : HHJ SHRI N.G. SHUKLA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 29.
DATED : 06/02/2024
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
1.
Applicant/accused who is arrested in Crime No.39/2024 for
the offence punishable under Sections 370(3) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code
2
BA No.255/2024
and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act has filed
this application for bail under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure. Prosecution filed say at Exh.2 and opposed the application.
2.
I have heard learned Advocate Shri. Sanjay Gaonkar for
applicant and Learned APP Mrs. Rashmi Tendulkar for prosecution.
4.
As per allegations in FIR, police received secret information
about Immoral Trafficking of women for prostitution in the spa where
applicant is working as a manager.
Police sent dummy customer who
handed over the amount of Rs.2,000/ to the applicant after selecting one
of the three girls shown by applicant and went in one room. He gave
missed call from the room to police and police conducted raid. Police
found Rs.3,500/, visiting cards and packets of condom in the cash counter
of the manager. Police inquired with victim girls and then arrested
applicant/accused.
5.
Learned advocate for applicant submitted that applicant was
allegedly running spa and saloon. Girl found with dummy customer was
not in objectionable situation. As per the say of police, victim girls were
providing additional services on their own and the customers were paying
charges to said girls. It is not case of police that, applicant/accused was
earning from the money received to victim girl. No specific amount
receivable by applicant from the girls is mentioned in FIR or say of police.
There is no material to show that applicant is manager of the spa and
saloon. One Bharat Kukreja is owner of spa. As per say of police, initially
applicant was allowed to go and then arrested. Applicant is behind bar
since 26.01.2024. Her further custody is not required for investigation. He
3
BA No.255/2024
is ready to cooperate police in remaining investigation. Hence, learned
advocate prayed to allow the application. Learned advocate relied on
following rulings
“1.
Rishi Shewaram Galrani Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC
OnLine Bom 3530, In the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
2.
Shraddha Chetan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra in Bail
Application No.1792/2023 passed on 01.08.2023, In the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay.
3.
Rohit Ranjan S/o. Kamalkant Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra in
Bail Application No.410/2019 passed on 18.02.2019, In the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay.”
6.
Learned APP argued that there was licence of running the spa
and saloon as told by applicant in inquiry by police. Applicant has herself
stated that she is manager of spa. Role of applicant is revealed in the raid
and inquiry with the victim girls. If released on bail, applicant may tamper
the evidence. Statements of victim girls under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. are yet to
be recorded. Hence, learned APP prayed to reject the application.
7.
I have considered submissions and perused the FIR and say. It
appears that when the police conducted raid after receiving missed call
from the dummy customer, police firstly met with the applicant and she
herself stated that she is working as a manager. There are statements of
dummy customer and victim girls showing that applicant is manager of the
spa and saloon. Victim girls have informed to the police that the applicant
is receiving initial amount of Rs.2,000/ paid by customer and the customer
used to choose the girl for prostitution in the rooms prepared for the said
purpose in the said spa. It further revealed in the investigation that the
4
BA No.255/2024
customer used to pay amounts to the victim girl after sexual relations and
the manager and spa owner Bharat Kukreja (wanted accused) used to
obtain major share of the said amount. Dummy customer has also stated
that he paid Rs.2,000/ to applicant and choose one girl and went inside
the room. Thus, this material is sufficient to show that applicant is manager
of the spa and involved in the crime of prostitution and insisting victim girls
for prostitution.
8.
I have gone through rulings relied by learned advocate for
applicant. In the ruling in Rishi Galrani, bail was granted as there was no
force on the girls for prostitution business. In the instant case, the victim
girl has stated to police that the applicant is insisting them for prostitution
and obtaining major share of the amount received to the victim girl after
sexual relation. In view of these facts, ruling in Rishi Galrani is not helpful
to grant bail to applicant.
9.
In the ruling in Sharda Pawar, the victim girls had not stated
about prostitution and therefore, bail was granted to the manager and
owner of spa. In Rohit Ranjan’s case, bail was granted as investigation
was completed and chargesheet was filed. In the instant case, there is
specific material showing that applicant was running the prostitution
business and obtaining major share of the income of victim girl received
after sexual relations from the customer. Investigation is at primary stage
and statements of victim under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. are yet to be recorded. If
released on bail, applicant may create and hindrance in the investigation.
Hence, I pass following order :
5
BA No.255/2024
ORDER
Bail Application No.255/2024 is rejected and accordingly disposed of.
Date : 06/02/2024
(N.G. Shukla)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
Greater Bombay
6
BA No.255/2024
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographer
Upload date and time
Name of the Judge
: Mrs. Shravanti Karre
: 06th February, 2024 (At 05.30 pm.)
H.H.THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI N. G. SHUKLA (C.R.No.29)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 06th February, 2024
Order signed by P.O. on
06th February, 2024
Order uploaded on
06th February, 2024