Mumbai, October 7, 2023 – The Special Court for Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), at Greater Bombay, has rejected the bail application of Gopal Dhokal Mandal, 45, who faces a slew of serious charges including human trafficking, forgery, and offenses under the NDPS Act. Mandal, a resident of Mira Road (East), Thane, was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 42/2023 registered by DCB-CID Unit-VIII, Mumbai (originally C.R. No. 285/2023 at M.I.D.C. police station).
The charges against Mandal are multifaceted, encompassing Sections 370(3) (trafficking of persons), 465 (forgery), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He is also accused under Sections 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act (PITA) and Sections 8(c) (prohibition of certain operations), 22(b) (punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances of intermediate quantity), and 29 (punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Prabhanjay R. Dave, representing Mandal, argued that his client was falsely implicated and that the accusations stemmed from disclosures made by co-accused. He contended that the foreign women involved in sex work were adults who acted voluntarily, implying no force, coercion, or deception was used by Mandal, thus questioning the applicability of Section 370(3) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of PITA. Mr. Dave also claimed that Mandal had no nexus with the forgery or NDPS charges, was not present in Mumbai on the incident date (allegedly in Jharkhand), and that victims had absconded. He sought bail on the grounds of parity, as co-accused had been released, and highlighted that previous criminal antecedents alone should not bar bail.
However, Ld. APP Mr. P.J. Tarange, representing the prosecution, strongly opposed the bail. He argued that Mandal had “given inducement of giving payment or benefits to the victims and thereby sexually exploited them,” asserting that the victims’ consent was immaterial for trafficking offenses. Given that two victims were allegedly trafficked, the punishment under Section 370(3) IPC could extend to life imprisonment, making the alleged offenses “heinous.” Mr. Tarange presented evidence from CDR analysis showing Mandal’s presence near the incident spot, refuting his alibi. He further revealed that Mandal has eight criminal antecedents of a similar nature (from 2009-2016), suggesting his involvement in a large trafficking racket. The APP also pointed to WhatsApp chats between Mandal and co-accused regarding supplying foreign girls for sex work, asserting Mandal’s central role as the “main culprit” taking commission. He also stated that Mandal had attempted to destroy evidence (his mobile phone) and that a wanted accused, Sabina, was yet to be arrested.
Special Judge K.P. Kshirsagar (C.R. 43) meticulously analyzed the arguments and the material on record. The court observed that the offenses alleged against Mandal, particularly Section 370(3) of the IPC (punishable by imprisonment up to life) and Section 5 of PITA (up to 7 years), are “of serious nature.”
The judge found prima facie evidence suggesting Mandal’s involvement in supplying victims for sex work, receiving commission, and providing victims with only a small portion of the charged amount. The court noted that victims’ statements indicated a wanted accused, Sabina, had detained their passports and visas, while Mandal arranged their residence and supplied them to customers. The court emphasized that under Section 370 of the IPC, the consent of the victim is immaterial in determining the offense of trafficking, especially when inducement (including payments or benefits to gain control over the person recruited) is involved.
The court rejected Mandal’s argument that his case was similar to the co-accused for parity, noting his “active role” and nexus with the co-accused in providing Indian and foreign women for sexual exploitation. The CDR analysis corroborated Mandal’s presence at the incident spot.
Crucially, the court highlighted Mandal’s eight criminal antecedents of a similar nature, concluding that the judgments cited by the applicant were not applicable due to differing facts.
Given that the investigation is “admittedly… not completed,” and considering the nature and gravity of the offenses, the court ruled that releasing Mandal at this stage would likely prejudice the investigation and the interests of society at large. The judge stated that a “liberal approach in grant of bail in such kind of offences under NDPS Act is also uncalled.”
Therefore, Special Judge Kshirsagar rejected Gopal Dhokal Mandal’s bail application (NDPS Bail Application No. 807 of 2023), determining that there were no justifiable grounds for his release at this stage.