Mumbai, India – February 6, 2024 – A Mumbai Sessions Court has rejected the bail application of Sonam Nareshsingh Thakur, the manager of a spa accused of operating a prostitution racket. Additional Sessions Judge N.G. Shukla, presiding over Court Room No. 29, denied Thakur’s bail in Bail Application No. 255 of 2024, related to C.R. No. 39/2024 registered at Mulund Police Station.

Thakur, also known as Sonam Atun Singh, was arrested on January 26, 2024, on charges under Section 370(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (trafficking of a person) and Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act (PITA).

Police Raid and Allegations:

The case stemmed from a police raid on the spa following a tip-off about alleged prostitution activities. An undercover police officer, posing as a customer, reportedly paid Thakur Rs. 2,000 after selecting one of three women presented to him. After entering a room, the officer gave a missed call to signal the raid.

During the raid, police recovered Rs. 3,500, visiting cards, and packets of condoms from the cash counter. Statements from the women working at the spa indicated Thakur’s involvement in facilitating prostitution.

Defense Arguments:

Thakur’s defense lawyer argued that the woman found with the undercover officer was not in an objectionable situation and that the women were providing “additional services” on their own accord. They also contended that there was no evidence of Thakur directly profiting from the women’s earnings and that she was not the owner of the spa. The defense cited previous court rulings where bail was granted in similar cases.

Prosecution’s Stance:

The prosecution argued that Thakur had identified herself as the spa manager during the raid and that statements from the undercover officer and the women implicated her in running the prostitution racket. They alleged that Thakur received the initial payment from customers and that she and the spa owner, Bharat Kukreja (who is absconding), took a significant share of the money earned by the women. The prosecution also expressed concerns that Thakur might tamper with evidence if released, as statements from the victim girls under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. are yet to be recorded.

Court’s Reasoning:

Judge Shukla rejected the defense’s arguments, emphasizing that statements from the undercover officer and the women clearly indicated Thakur’s role as the spa manager and her involvement in facilitating prostitution. The court noted that the women had stated that Thakur insisted they engage in prostitution and that she and the spa owner took a major share of their earnings.

The court distinguished the cited rulings, noting that in those cases, there was either no evidence of forced prostitution or the investigation was complete. In Thakur’s case, the court highlighted the active role she played in the alleged trafficking and the ongoing nature of the investigation.

“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,” Judge Shukla stated in his order.

Implications:

The court’s decision underscores the seriousness with which it views cases of human trafficking and prostitution. The rejection of bail highlights the court’s emphasis on protecting vulnerable individuals and ensuring the integrity of the investigation. The case also brings to light the ongoing issue of illegal activities operating under the guise of legitimate businesses like spas and salons.