NDPS BA No.807/2023
..1..

in NDPS RA No.1082/2023
MHCC020138812023
Presented on
: 13-09-2023
Registered on : 13-09-2023
Decided on
: 07-10-2023
Duration
: 24 Days
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR NARCOTIC DRUG AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, AT GR. BOMBAY
NDPS BAIL APPLICATION NO.807 OF 2023
IN
NDPS REMAND APPLICATION NO1082 OF 2023
Gopal Dhokal Mandal
Age : 45 years, Occ: Service,
R/at : B1/203, Sunder Sagar, B1, CHS
LTD, Mira Bhayander, Near Police
Station, Mira Road (East), Thane 401107.

)
)
)
)
)
) .. Applicant/accused
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
)
(At the instance of DCB-CID Unit-VIII, )
Mumbai, vide C.R. No.42/2023).
) .. Respondent/Prosecutor
Appearance :
Ld. Adv. Mr. Prabhanjay R. Dave, for the applicant.
Ld. APP Mr. P.J. Tarange, for the respondent/prosecution.

NDPS BA No.807/2023
..2..

in NDPS RA No.1082/2023
CORAM : K.P. KSHIRSAGAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (C.R.43)
DATE
: 07/10/2023
ORAL ORDER
This is an application taken out by applicant/accused Gopal
Dhokal Mandal under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for
enlarging him on bail in C.R. No.42/2023 registered in DCB-CID UnitVIII, Mumbai (C.R. No.285/2023 registered with M.I.D.C. police station,
Mumbai) for the offences punishable under section 370(3), 465 and
471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (here-in-after referred as “IPC”),
for the offences punishable under Section 4 and 5 of the Prevention of
Immoral Traffic Act (hereinafter referred as “PITA”) and for the offences
punishable under section 8(c) r/w section 22(b) and section 29 of
Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter
referred as “NDPS Act”).
2.

Perused the application, documents filed therewith, say of
the learned APP and material on record. Heard, arguments advanced by
learned Advocate for applicant/accused and learned APP.
3.

Learned Advocate for applicant/accused submitted that,
this is the first bail application taken out by the applicant/accused and
no other bail application of the applicant/accused is pending in any
higher Court in respect of the above C.R. No.42/2023. Learned
Advocate for applicant/accused argued that, from the accusations in the
FIR it is clear that, it is case of the prosecution that, the co-accused
Nos.1
and
2
during
investigation
disclosed
that,
present
NDPS BA No.807/2023
..3..

in NDPS RA No.1082/2023
applicant/accused used to supply Indian and foreigner girls for sex
work/(prostitution) and he had supplied the foreigner girls/victims of
the present crime to the bogus customer in the present matter. Both the
victims of the present crime are majors. From the prosecution case and
the statement of the victims it is clear that, they were voluntary
involved in sex work and the applicant/accused had not used any
threats, force, coercion, or practiced any fraud, or deception and
applicant had not abducted or abused his power and induced them.
From the material on record and prosecution case it is clear that, the
applicant/accused is not having any nexus with offence punishable
under section 465 and 471 of IPC and offence punishable under section
8(c) r/w section 22(b) and section 29 of the NDPS Act.
4.

Though
as
per
the
prosecution
case
the
present
applicant/accused had brought said foreigner victims to the hotel for
the sex work CCTV footage in the hotel is not produced or relied by the
prosecution. Applicant/accused was not present in Mumbai on the date
of incident as he had been to his native place in Jharkhand. There was
no inducement by the applicant/accused to the victims. The victims of
the crime themselves in their statement stated that, they voluntary came
to the India for sex work. Therefore, prima facie case for the offence
punishable under section 370(3), section 4 and 5 of PITA Act and the
other offences is not made out against the applicant. Applicant is falsely
implicated in the present crime. Till date no identification parade of the
applicant/accused is conducted. The age of the victims is 26 years and
34 years. The co-accused in the crime are already released on bail.
Applicant/accused is entitled for bail on the ground of parity also. Mere
fact that, applicant/accused is having criminal antecedents itself is not a
ground for rejection of bail. In most of the earlier matter
NDPS BA No.807/2023
..4..

in NDPS RA No.1082/2023
applicant/accused is acquitted. Bogus customer is a extortionist. As
there is no accusation that, applicant/accused had used any threats,
force, coercion, or practiced any fraud, or deception and applicant had
not abducted or abused his power and induced victims. Prima facie case
for the offence punishable under section 370(3), section 4 and 5 of PITA
Act
and
the
other
offences
is
not
made
out
against
the
applicant/accused. The victims of the offence absconded and they will
not be available during the course of trial. The applicant/accused is
resident of Mumbai. He is ready to abide all terms and conditions which
the
court
may
impose.

Therefore,
Ld.

Advocate
for
the
applicant/accused prayed that, applicant/accused be released on bail.
Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused kept his reliance on
the following citations :
No.1
Raosaheb Patole Vs. The State of
Maharashtra, in Criminal Bail Application
No.373/2011, dated 24/03/2011 of
Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

No.2
Rashida @ Simran Mohammad Shaikh
Vs. The State of Maharashtra, in Criminal
Bail Application No.323/2019, dated
21/06/2019 of Hon’ble Bombay High
Court.

No.3
Rakesh Bhairo Dodi Yadav & Ors., Vs. The
State of Maharashtra, in Criminal Bail
Application
No.1735/2015,
dated
07/10/2015 of Hon’ble Bombay High
Court.

No.4
Umesh Vasudeo Yadav and Anr., Vs. The
State of Maharashtra, in Criminal Bail
Application
No.503/2015,
dated
NDPS BA No.807/2023
..5..

in NDPS RA No.1082/2023
11/03/2015 of Hon’ble Bombay
Court.
No.5
High
Virendra Jairam Yadav Vs. The State of
Maharashtra,
in
Anticipatory
Bail
Application
No.889/2014,
dated
06/08/2014 of Hon’ble Bombay High
Court.

Court has gone through the observations made therein.
5.

On
the
other
hand,
Ld.

APP
argued
that,
the
applicant/accused had given inducement of giving payment or benefits
to the victims and thereby sexually exploited the victims. Therefore,
prima facie case for trafficking is made out. Consent of the victims is not
material. As the two victims were trafficked the punishment provided
for the offence under section 370(3) of IPC may extend for
imprisonment upto life. Therefore, the punishment provided for the
offence is sever and the alleged offence is of heinous nature. The CDR
analysis of the mobile of the applicant reveals that, on the date of
incident he was present nearby the spot of incident. Therefore, there is
no substance in the contention of the applicant that on the date of
incident he was at his native place in Jharkand. The applicant is having
eight criminal antecedents of the similar nature. The above fact reveals
that, the applicant is involved in the racket of trafficking victims for
sexual exploitation. The passports of the victims are detained by the
wanted accused. Prima facie appreciation of the material on record
reveals that, applicant/accused had nexus with the co-accused Nos.1
and 2 and applicant/accused used to supply Indian and foreigner girls
for sex work and applicant/accused used to take commission from the
NDPS BA No.807/2023
..6..

in NDPS RA No.1082/2023
victims. Applicant/accused is the main culprit and he has played the
important role in the sex racket.
6.

There are Whats-App chat between the co-accused No.1
and 2 and the applicant/accused about supplying the foreigner
girls/victims for sex work. The material on record reveals involvement
of the applicant/accused for the offence punishable under section
370(3) and section 4 and 5 of PITA Act. Moreover, the investigation in
respect of the applicant/accused is pending. Wanted accused Sabina is
yet to be arrested. The applicant/accused already tried to destroy the
evidence
i.e.

mobile
phone.

Therefore,
the
possibility
that,
applicant/accused may tamper the prosecution evidence or influence
the witnesses or may involve in the commission of such offences cannot
be ruled out at this stage. Therefore, Ld. APP submitted that application
be rejected.
7.

From the matter on record it appears that, Crime
No.42/2023 is registered against the applicant/accused and other coaccused by DCB-CID Unit-VIII, Mumbai for the offences punishable
under section 370(3), 465 and 471 r/w 34 of the IPC, for the offences
punishable under Section 4 and 5 of the PITA Act and for the offences
punishable under section 8(c) r/w section 22(b) and section 29 of
NDPS Act. As per Advocate for the applicant/accused alleged role of the
applicant/accused is concerning only to the extent of the offence
punishable under section 370(3) of IPC and section 4 and section 5 of
PITA Act. The punishment provided for the offence punishable under
section 370(3) of the IPC is imprisonment which may extend
imprisonment for life. Moreover, the punishment provided for the
offence punishable under section 5 of the PITA Act may extend upto 7
NDPS BA No.807/2023
..7..

in NDPS RA No.1082/2023
years. As such the offences alleged to be committed by the applicant is
of serious nature.
8.

From the prima facie appreciation of the material on record
including the statements of the victims prima facie it appears that,
applicant/accused is involved in supplying the victims in the present
crime for the sex work and for that he used to receive commission and
the applicant/accused used to take huge amount and used to make
payment of the some amount therein to the victims. Statements of the
victims of the offence reveals that, wanted accused Sabina detained
their passports and visa and the applicant/accused had made
arrangement for their residence and applicant/accused used to supply
the victims to the customers for the sex work and he used to give a very
small amount to them from the amount charged to the customers for
the sex work. The statements of the victims reveals that, the
applicant/accused had taken the victims of the crime to the spot of
incident. Therefore, from appreciation of the material on record it
appears that, applicant/accused used to provide the victims for sex
work and he used to give little payment out of the amount charged to
the customers and the victims used to receive payments for doing the
sex work with the customers whichever were provided by the applicant.
Therefore, from the material on record prima facie it appears that, the
applicant had trafficked the victims of the offence for their sexual
exploitation by inducement i.e. by giving payments and benefits to
them. Moreover, as per section 370 explanation consent of the victim is
immaterial in determination of the offence of trafficking. Therefore,
there appear no substance in the contention of the applicant/accused
that, applicant/accused had not induced the victims for sexual
exploitation and he had not used any threats, force, coercion, or
NDPS BA No.807/2023
..8..

in NDPS RA No.1082/2023
practiced any fraud, or deception and applicant had not abducted or
abused his power and induced them and therefore, section 370(3) of
IPC is not attracted.
9.

Moreover, from the appreciation of the material on record
it appears that, applicant/accused was having nexus with the coaccused Nos.1 and 2 and he used to provide the Indian and foreigner
girls for sexual work to the customers. Mere fact that, the victims are
major and they were doing sex work on their own will does not mean
that, the offence punishable under section 370(3) of IPC is not
applicable. From the prima facie appreciation of the material on record
the case of the applicant/accused falls section 370(1) of IPC in category
number 6 i.e. inducement, which includes giving or receiving of
payments or benefits, in order to achieve consent of any person for
having control over the person recruited. Therefore, from material on
record it appears that, applicant had recruited the victims for sexual
exploitation by means of inducement and the applicant/accused was
leaving on the earning by supplying the Indian and foreigner
girls/womans and victims for sexual work. Therefore, prima facie there
appear no substance in the contention fo the applicant/accused that,
offence punishable under section 370(3) of IPC and section 4 and 5 of
PITA Act is not applicable to the case of the applicant/accused. From the
appreciation
of
the
material
on
record
it
appears
that,
applicant/accused has played active role in the sex racket and the role
played by the co-accused Nos.1 and 2 is different. Therefore,
considering the nature of the accusations against the applicant/accused
and the role played by the applicant/accused in the present crime there
appear no substance in the contention of the applicant/accused that,
case of the applicant/accused and co-accused Nos.1 and 2 in the present
NDPS BA No.807/2023
..9..

in NDPS RA No.1082/2023
crime is same and therefore, applicant/accused is entitled for grant of
bail on the ground of parity.
10.

Moreover, from the statement of the victim and the copy of
FIR and material on record it appears that, the applicant had taken the
victims in the hotel for providing them to the customers. The CDR
analysis details of the cell phone of the applicant provided reveals his
presence near the spot of incident on the date of incident. Moreover,
from the reply it appears that, the applicant is having eight criminal
antecedents of similar nature from the year 2009 till 2016. The material
on record also reveals that, the applicant used to charge huge amount
of Rs.22,000/- from the customers for one victim and used to provide
them only amount of Rs.5,000/-. The above fact prima facie reveals
sexual exploitation of the victims by the applicant by inducing and
recruiting them for the sex work.
11.

Prima facie there appear inducement by the applicant for
recruiting the victims for their sexual exploitation. Considering the facts
of the present case and the fact that prima facie the provision of section
370(3) of IPC and section 4 and 5 of PITA Act are attracted in the
present matter and applicant/accused is having criminal antecedents of
similar nature, in the humble opinion of this Court the facts of the
judgment cited supra relied by the applicant are different than the facts
of the present case. Therefore, in the humble opinion of this Court the
judgments relied by the applicant are not helpful to the applicant in the
present matter.
12.

Admittedly, till date investigation is not completed. Prima
facie there is no material on record, so as to doubt genuineness of the
NDPS BA No.807/2023
..10..

in NDPS RA No.1082/2023
prosecution case. Prima facie there appear no inherent infirmities or
improbability in the prosecution case. Considering the nature of offence
the possibility that, after release of the applicant/accused, the
applicant/accused may tamper the prosecution witnesses or influence
the witnesses or may involve in commission of such offences cannot be
ruled out at this stage. Moreover, considering the quantity of the
contraband seized and the facts of the case free, fair and full
investigation of the present crime is likely to be prejudiced and
investigation is likely to be hampered if the applicant/accused is
released at this stage. Therefore, at this stage there appear necessity for
the further detention of the applicant/accused for facilitating further
investigation.
13.

Moreover, from the accusations against applicant/accused
and prima facie appreciation of the material on record it appears that,
the applicant/accused has played active role. The offence alleged to be
committed by the applicant/accused is of heinous nature. Investigation
carried out till date suggest that, applicant/accused is involved in the
drug peddling and having nexus with the co-accused. At this stage high
degree of evidence is also not required to establish the conspiracy. At
this stage prima facie applicant/accused also failed to demonstrate that,
he is not involved in the crime.
14.

Considering the above facts and discussion and prima facie
appreciation of the material on record release of the applicant/accused
at this stage is likely to be prejudicial to the interest of the society at
large. Liberal approach in grant of bail in such kind of offences under
NDPS Act is also uncalled.

NDPS BA No.807/2023
15.

..11..

in NDPS RA No.1082/2023
On prima facie appreciation of the material on record and
considering the nature of the offence, gravity of the offence and fact
that, investigation is yet to be completed there appear no justifiable
grounds for releasing applicant/accused on bail at this stage. As such
the present application is liable to be rejected. Hence, the following
order.
ORDER
1.

NDPS Bail Application No.807/2023 of applicant/accused Gopal
Dhokal Mandal in C.R. No.42/2023 in NDPS RA No.1082/2023,
is rejected.

2.

NDPS Bail Application No.807/2023 is disposed of accordingly.
(Pronounced in open Court)
Digitally signed
by KIRAN
PRAKASH
KIRAN
KSHIRSAGAR
PRAKASH
KSHIRSAGAR Date:
2023.10.09
13:38:20 +0530
Date : 07/10/2023.

(K.P. Kshirsagar)
N.D.P.S Special Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (CR.43)
Dictated on
:
07/10/2023
Transcribed on
:
07/10/2023
Checked on
:
07/10/2023
Signed on
:
09/10/2023
NDPS BA No.807/2023
..12..

in NDPS RA No.1082/2023
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE
09.10.2023
TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
01.36 p.m.

Sanjay Baliram Kaskar
(Stenographer Grade-I)
Name of the Judge
H.H.J. SHRI. K.P. KSHIRSAGAR
NDPS Spl. Judge (C.R.No.43)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.

07/10/2023
Judgment/order signed by P.O
on
09/10/2023
Judgment/order uploaded on
09/10/2023