MUMBAI, INDIA – April 11, 2022 – In a case that has sent ripples through the city, Gopal Ugar Yadav and Saifulla Attyarman Shaikh, accused of running a prostitution racket involving the forced confinement and sexual exploitation of multiple women, have been granted bail by the Sessions Court at Greater Bombay. The decision, handed down by Additional Sessions Judge Smt. Sanjashree J. Gharat on April 8, 2022, comes despite serious allegations and strong objections from the prosecution.

The case, registered as C.R. No. 746 of 2021 at D.B. Marg Police Station, stems from a raid conducted on December 19, 2021, at Maval Building. Acting on a tip-off, Senior Police Inspector Salunkhe, authorized as a Special Police Officer under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA), led the operation that resulted in the rescue of ten women.

The prosecution alleges that these women were procured and forced into prostitution by the accused, who also allegedly retained a portion of their earnings. The victims, during initial inquiries, reportedly corroborated these claims. Furthermore, the prosecution’s reply to the bail application revealed a disturbing detail: two women were found confined in a small, dark, and poorly ventilated compartment, described as a “shelf,” shivering and struggling to breathe.

The accused, Yadav and Shaikh, were charged under sections 370(3) (trafficking of person), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal¹ Code (IPC), and sections 3, 4, 5, and 7(1)(B) of the ITPA Act.

Defense lawyer Prabhnjay Dave argued for bail, claiming that his clients were falsely implicated and that previous bail rejections were based on the ongoing investigation. He emphasized that the investigation was now substantially complete, and that the victims were all adults who willingly engaged in prostitution, rendering sections 370 of the IPC and 5 of the ITPA Act inapplicable.

However, the prosecution, represented by Ld. APP. Kalpana Hire, vehemently opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the offenses and the accused’s alleged non-cooperation during the investigation. They expressed concerns that granting bail would lead to tampering with evidence and intimidation of witnesses.

Judge Gharat, after reviewing the prosecution’s case and arguments, acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations, particularly the discovery of two women confined in a distressing manner. However, she also noted that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed. She reasoned that indefinite pre-trial detention would amount to pre-trial conviction.

Ultimately, the court granted bail to Yadav and Shaikh, subject to stringent conditions:

• Bail Bond: Each accused was required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more solvent sureties of the same amount.
• Weekly Police Visits: The accused must report to D.B. Marg Police Station every Friday between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM and maintain a diary of these visits until the trial’s conclusion.
• Travel Restriction: The accused are prohibited from leaving Maharashtra without prior court permission.
• Address and Identification: They must provide proof of their residential address, phone number, Aadhar Card, and Election Card (if applicable).
• No Further Crimes: Involvement in any further criminal activity could lead to bail cancellation.
• No Tampering or Intimidation: The accused are forbidden from tampering with evidence or witnesses, and from influencing anyone involved in the case.
• Court Attendance: They must attend all court hearings.
• No Contact with Witnesses: They are prohibited from visiting or contacting prosecution witnesses.
• Provisional Bail: The provisional cash bail is allowed for eight weeks.

The order has sparked debate among legal experts and social activists. While some acknowledge the court’s consideration of pre-trial detention, others express concern over the potential impact on witness safety and the integrity of the judicial process. The case highlights the complex interplay between individual liberty and the need to protect vulnerable victims of exploitation. The case continues to be followed closely by the public, as it brings to light the harsh realities of human trafficking within urban centers.