Mumbai Sessions Court Grants Bail to aCCUSED in Alleged Human Trafficking and Immoral Traffic Case (IPC 370(A), 370(3) and ITPA 4, 5)

Introduction: A Case of Alleged Prostitution Racket

The Mumbai Sessions Court, presided over by HHJ Dr. Gauri Kawdikar, Additional Sessions Judge, delivered an important Order on May 3, 2024, granting bail to an accused, Miss Aditi Pravin Chalke, a 21-year-old student, in connection with a case involving alleged human trafficking and offenses under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA).

The application, Criminal Bail Application No. 1001 of 2024, was filed by Ms. Chalke under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) against C.R. No. 225/2024 registered with Pant Nagar Police Station. The charges leveled against the accused were serious, including:

Sections 370(A) and 370(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deal with the exploitation of a trafficked person and aggravated forms of trafficking.
Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, which pertain to living on the earnings of prostitution and procuring or inducing a person for the purpose of prostitution.

Factual Matrix of the Case

The case originated from an FIR lodged on April 6, 2024, following a secret information received by PI Kalpana Jadhav. The information suggested that a person was providing girls for prostitution via a specific mobile number (9326740701).

Sting Operation: The police arranged for two panchas and a dummy customer to contact the number.
Negotiation: The dummy customer contacted the number and spoke to a girl who identified herself as Aditi (the Applicant). Aditi allegedly demanded Rs. 25,000/- for providing a girl for sexual relations, including her own commission of Rs. 5,000/-.
Meeting and Raid: Aditi sent four photos to the customer, and they agreed to meet at Monica Bar and Family Restaurant, Ghatkopar. The dummy customer met Aditi and four girls there. A raid was subsequently effected, during which the four victims were rescued and the accused’s mobile phone and cash were seized.
Arrest: The accused was arrested on April 6, 2024.

Arguments Presented by the Parties

For the Applicant (Accused):

Mr. P.R. Salve, the learned advocate for Ms. Chalke, argued that:

The FIR was false and concocted, and the accused had no nexus with the commission of the offense.
The accused did not force the victims into prostitution, did not secure any girls for the purpose, and was not living on the earnings of prostitution.
The accused has no criminal antecedents and is a permanent resident of Mumbai.
The Applicant was ready to abide by all terms and conditions imposed by the Court.

For the Respondent (State):

Mrs. Meera Choudhari-Bhosale, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Ld. A.P.P.), strongly opposed the bail application, submitting that:

The offense is serious in nature.
The investigation is at a preliminary stage.
Granting bail could lead to the accused tampering with prosecution evidence and witnesses, absconding, and a possibility of repetition of the crime.

Crucial Court Observations and Reasoning

The Court meticulously perused the record, including the FIR and key documents. The following observations formed the basis for the decision to grant bail:

Voluntary Involvement of Victims

The most crucial factor was the finding recorded during a prior judicial proceeding:

The Court noted an Order dated 26/04/2024 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, under the ITPA (in RA 18/2024).
Paragraph 4 of that Order specifically mentioned that “During the inquiry any sort of force or coercion not detected regarding sex work done by the said victims. It also appeared that her involvement in the sex work is voluntarily.”
The Sessions Court emphasized that this inquiry finding—that no force or coercion was detected on the victims by the present accused—was a significant factor, especially considering that all victims are major.

Requirement of Continued Incarceration

The Court applied the principle of whether the continued incarceration of the accused was required. Given that:

Statements of the victims under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. had been recorded.
The spot panchanama had been drawn, and material evidence like the mobile phone and cash had been seized.
The accused had been arrested on April 6, 2024.

The Court concluded that in light of the inquiry finding that the victims’ involvement was voluntary, continued incarceration of the accused is not required for the purpose of investigation.

Ancillary Factors

The Court also took into account the Applicant’s profile:

She does not have any criminal antecedents.
She is a permanent resident of Mumbai.

To balance the rights of the accused with the concerns of the prosecution and the safety of the victims, the Court decided to impose strict terms and conditions.

The Final Order and Bail Conditions

The Court, finding it fit to grant bail, passed the following ORDER:

Bail Granted: The Criminal Bail Application is allowed.
Bail Bond: Miss Aditi Pravin Chalke is to be released on bail on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in a like amount.

The bail was granted subject to the following conditions:

Condition	Detail
Police Station Attendance	She shall attend Pant Nagar Police Station on the and Saturday of every month (10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.) until the charge-sheet is filed, and thereafter, on the Saturday of every month until the conclusion of the trial.
Non-Repetition	She shall not commit any offense in the future.
Travel Restriction	She shall not leave the jurisdiction of Mumbai or go abroad without the leave of the Court.
Contact Details	She must furnish her permanent and temporary address, if any, and her contact details to the concerned police station.
Victim Contact	She shall not contact the victims or their family members directly or indirectly by any means.
Address Change	She shall not change her residential address without prior intimation.
Cancellation Clause	The prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail if any of the conditions are breached.

The bail bond is to be furnished before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court.

Conclusion: A Focus on the Nature of Alleged Trafficking

This case highlights the nuanced distinction in law between offenses under the ITPA and the severe implications of human trafficking under IPC Section 370. The Court’s reliance on the Metropolitan Magistrate’s finding that the sex work was voluntary and no coercion was detected significantly weakened the prosecution’s case for continued detention, particularly on the trafficking charges. The Order demonstrates the Court’s commitment to the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially when the key grounds for continued custody, such as evidence tampering or flight risk, can be mitigated through stringent conditions.