Mumbai, Maharashtra – February 22, 2024 – Reshma Ravindra Sutar, a 55-year-old businesswoman from Navi Mumbai, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with a prostitution case registered at the Pantnagar Police Station.

Background of the Case:

Sutar was arrested and charged under Sections 370(A) (trafficking of a person) and 370(3) (trafficking of a minor) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA), 1956, in connection with C.R. No. 828/2023.

The prosecution alleged that Sutar was involved in a prostitution racket. A dummy customer was used to contact a woman (co-accused Nikita) who allegedly arranged sexual services for Rs. 15,000 at a hotel in Ghatkopar East. During a raid, three women were rescued, and cash and a mobile phone were seized from the co-accused Nikita. The name of Reshma Sutar was revealed in the statement of one of the victims, Poonam.

Arguments Presented:

Sutar, through her advocate K.B. Jangale, argued that:

• The FIR was false and concocted.
• She had no involvement in forcing women into prostitution.
• She did not secure girls for prostitution or receive any earnings from it.
• She had no criminal antecedents and was a permanent resident of Mumbai.
• She was willing to abide by all court conditions.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutors (Addl.PPs) Meera Choudhari-Bhosale and Rajlaxmi Bhandari, opposed the bail application, arguing that:

• The offense was serious.
• The investigation was at a preliminary stage.
• Sutar might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
• She might abscond or repeat the crime.
• Her name was revealed in a victim’s statement.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar granted bail to Sutar. The court considered the following factors:

• Voluntary Nature of Sex Work: The court noted that during an inquiry by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 17 of the ITPA, “no force or coercion was detected regarding sex work done by the said victim” and that “their involvement in the sex work was found to be voluntarily.”
• Statements Under Section 164 CrPC: The court acknowledged the prosecution’s claim that victims had stated they were coerced into prostitution in their statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), but these statements were not produced by the prosecution in court.
• Victims Were Major: The court noted that all the rescued women were adults.
• Completed Investigation (Partially): The court observed that statements and a spot panchanama had been recorded, and items had been seized.
• Lack of Criminal Antecedents and Residency: Sutar had no criminal record and was a permanent resident of Kharghar, Raigad, reducing the risk of absconding.
• Continued Incarceration Unnecessary: The court concluded that continued incarceration was not necessary, considering the inquiry findings and the progress of the investigation.

Bail Conditions Imposed:

The court granted bail to Reshma Ravindra Sutar on the following conditions:

• Personal Bond and Surety: She must execute a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• Police Station Attendance: She must attend the Pantnagar Police Station on the 1st and 3rd Saturdays of every month until the charge sheet is filed, and then on the 1st Saturday of every month until the trial concludes.
• Jurisdiction Restriction: She must not leave the jurisdiction of Mumbai without the court’s permission.
• Contact Information: She must provide her current address and phone numbers to the investigating officer and the court.
• Address Change Notification: She must inform the investigating officer and the court of any address changes.
• No Tampering or Influence: She must not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
• Cooperation with Trial: She must cooperate with the trial.
• Bail Cancellation: The prosecution can seek cancellation of bail for any breach of conditions.
• Bail Execution: The bail must be executed before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision reiterates the court’s consideration of the voluntary nature of sex work and the lack of coercion when determining bail applications in prostitution cases. The court’s reliance on the Metropolitan Magistrate’s inquiry findings, despite the prosecution’s claims of coercion, underscores the importance of judicial inquiries in such cases. The court also balanced the rights of the accused with the need to prevent further offenses and protect victims by imposing stringent conditions. The fact that the victims were adults and the enquiry showed no coercion, played a large role in the court granting bail.