The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, at Mumbai, granted bail to the applicant, Devshri Haridas Gadge @ Nikita Haridas Ghadge, in a significant order dated April 25th, 2024. The case, arising from C.R. No. 828/2023 of Pantnagar Police Station, involved serious allegations under Sections 370(A) and 370(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Trafficking of Persons), alongside Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA). The court’s decision, presided over by Addl. Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar, hinged critically on the findings of an inquiry conducted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, which contradicted the initial prosecution stance on coercion.

The Allegations and The Defense

The police registered the case following a raid conducted on December 30th, 2023. The operation was initiated based on secret information that a woman using the name “Nikita” was providing women for prostitution for a fee. A dummy customer was used to contact the mobile numbers provided, and he was directed to the Balaji Hotel. The prosecution alleged that the present accused, who identified herself as Nikita (later confirmed as Devshri Haridas Gadge), accepted an envelope containing the agreed-upon amount of ₹15,000/-. Upon acceptance, a raid was conducted, three victims were rescued, and cash, a mobile phone, and a shoulder purse were seized from the accused. The prosecution opposed the bail plea, citing the seriousness of the offense, the possibility of the accused tampering with evidence or absconding, and the discrepancy in her name (Devshri Haridas Gadge vs. Nikita Haridas Ghadge in the FIR).

The defense, led by Mr. B.M. Choure, vehemently argued that the accused was falsely implicated and had no nexus with the commission of the offense. They stressed that the accused did not force any victim into prostitution, nor did she secure girls or live on the earnings of prostitution. Crucially, the defense pointed out that the accused had no criminal antecedents, was a permanent resident of Navi Mumbai, and was ready to abide by any court-imposed conditions.

Judicial Scrutiny and The Inquiry Finding

The turning point in the court’s decision was a close examination of the available judicial records, particularly an order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in related proceedings (RA 01/2024). While the Ld. APP submitted that the victims’ statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. spoke of being coerced into prostitution, the prosecution failed to produce these statements on record for the bail hearing.

Instead, the Court of Sessions relied on the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order dated January 2nd, 2024, which specifically dealt with the PITA inquiry. The bail order explicitly quotes Paragraph 5 of the Magistrate’s order, noting a key finding: “During the inquiry any sort of force or coercion not detected regarding sex work done by the said victim.” The Magistrate’s order further appended that the victims’ involvement in the sex work was found to be voluntary, noting that voluntary sex work is “at all not illegal.” This crucial finding effectively diluted the severity of the coercion charge under Section 370(A) and 370(3) of the IPC at the prima facie stage.

The Final Ruling and Conditions

The Additional Sessions Judge considered that the investigation was substantially complete with the arrest of the accused on December 31st, 2023, the drawing of the spot panchanama, the recording of statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and the seizure of the mobile phone and cash. Given that the Metropolitan Magistrate’s inquiry indicated no force or coercion was detected, that all victims were major, and that the accused had no criminal antecedents, the court concluded that the continued incarceration of the accused was not required.

The court, therefore, allowed the Criminal Bail Application, ordering the release of Devshri Haridas Gadge @ Nikita Haridas Ghadge on a P.R. Bond of ₹25,000/- with one or more sureties in a like amount, subject to strict conditions:

• Attendance: She must attend the Pantnagar Police Station on the 1st and 3rd Saturday of every month until the charge-sheet is filed, and thereafter, on the 1st Saturday of every month until the conclusion of the trial.
• Restriction on Movement: She shall not leave the jurisdiction of Mumbai without the court’s permission.
• No Tampering: She must not tamper or attempt to influence any person concerned with the case (including victims) and must cooperate in the trial.

This decision underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing the severity of the alleged offense with the accused’s right to liberty, especially when preliminary judicial inquiries cast doubt on the core allegations of forced trafficking.