Mumbai, October 9, 2023 – The Special Court for Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Gr. Bombay, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge (C.R.43) Shri K.P. Kshirsagar, rejected the bail application of Gopal Dhokal Mandal, accused in a case involving offences under the NDPS Act, Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act (PITA), and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court, in its order dated October 7, 2023, cited the prima facie involvement of the accused in trafficking for sexual exploitation, his criminal antecedents, and the ongoing investigation as key reasons for denying bail.

The case, C.R. No. 42/2023 registered with DCB-CID Unit-VIII, Mumbai (originally C.R. No. 285/2023 at M.I.D.C. Police Station), involves allegations against Gopal Dhokal Mandal, a 45-year-old service professional residing in Mira Road (East), Thane. He was charged with offences punishable under Section 370(3) (trafficking of person), 465 (forgery), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC, as well as Sections 4 and 5 of the PITA, and Section 8(c) read with Section 22(b) and Section 29 (abetment and criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

Advocate Shri Prabhanjay R. Dave, representing the applicant, argued that this was the first bail application filed by his client and that no other such application was pending in any higher court. He contended that the FIR primarily implicated co-accused who allegedly disclosed that the present applicant supplied Indian and foreign women for prostitution. He further argued that the alleged victims were majors who voluntarily engaged in sex work, and that the applicant had not used any threat, force, coercion, fraud, or deception, nor had he abducted or abused his power to induce them. The defense also claimed the applicant had no connection to the IPC or NDPS Act offences.

Shri Dave further submitted that despite allegations of the applicant bringing the victims to a hotel for sex work, no CCTV footage was produced. He also claimed the applicant was in his native place in Jharkhand on the date of the incident and that the victims themselves stated they came to India voluntarily for sex work. The defense argued that no prima facie case was made out under the relevant sections of IPC and PITA, and that the applicant was falsely implicated. He also pointed to the fact that no identification parade was conducted, the victims were adults (26 and 34 years old), and the co-accused were already released on bail, arguing for parity. The existence of prior criminal cases, the defense asserted, was not sufficient grounds for rejecting bail, especially since the applicant was acquitted in most of them. The defense also labeled the “bogus customer” as an extortionist.

In contrast, Learned APP Shri P.J. Tarange argued vehemently against the bail application. He contended that the applicant had induced the victims with promises of payment and benefits, leading to their sexual exploitation, thus establishing a prima facie case of trafficking. He emphasized that the consent of the victims was irrelevant in determining trafficking offences under Section 370 of the IPC. Given that the victims were trafficked, the punishment for the offence under Section 370(3) could extend to life imprisonment, making it a severe and heinous crime.

The prosecution highlighted the Call Detail Record (CDR) analysis of the applicant’s mobile phone, which allegedly placed him near the scene of the incident on the relevant date, contradicting his claim of being in Jharkhand. The APP also brought to the court’s attention the applicant’s eight prior criminal cases of a similar nature, suggesting his involvement in a trafficking racket. The prosecution further stated that the victims’ passports were detained by a wanted accused, and prima facie evidence indicated the applicant’s nexus with the co-accused in supplying women for sex work and taking commissions. The APP portrayed the applicant as the main culprit with a significant role in the sex racket.

Furthermore, the prosecution presented WhatsApp chats between the co-accused and the applicant regarding the supply of foreign women for sex work. They argued that the material on record revealed the applicant’s involvement in offences under Section 370(3) of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of PITA. The APP also pointed out the pending investigation concerning the applicant, the absconding wanted accused Sabina, and the applicant’s alleged attempt to destroy evidence by discarding his mobile phone. The prosecution argued that releasing the applicant could lead to tampering of evidence, influencing witnesses, or further involvement in similar offences.

After considering the arguments and the material on record, Additional Sessions Judge Shri Kshirsagar observed that the applicant was accused of serious offences under IPC and PITA, with the punishment for Section 370(3) IPC potentially extending to life imprisonment and for Section 5 of PITA up to seven years.

The court noted that a prima facie appreciation of the victims’ statements suggested the applicant’s involvement in supplying them for sex work in exchange for commissions. The victims’ statements also indicated that a wanted accused had their passports and visas, and the applicant arranged their accommodation and facilitated their interaction with customers for sex work, providing them with only a small portion of the earnings.

Based on the victims’ statements, the court found prima facie evidence that the applicant had trafficked them for sexual exploitation through inducement, i.e., by offering payments and benefits. The court also cited the explanation under Section 370 of IPC, which states that the consent of the victim is immaterial in determining the offence of trafficking. Therefore, the court found no substance in the applicant’s contention that he did not induce the victims or use any coercion.

The court further noted the applicant’s nexus with the co-accused in providing women for sex work. The court clarified that the victims being majors and allegedly engaging in sex work willingly did not negate the applicability of Section 370(3) of IPC. The court opined that the applicant’s actions prima facie fell under Section 370(1) of IPC, specifically category 6, which includes inducement through giving or receiving payments or benefits to gain control over a recruited person for exploitation. The court concluded that there was no prima facie substance in the applicant’s argument that Section 370(3) IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of PITA were not applicable.

The court distinguished the applicant’s role from that of the co-accused, noting his active involvement in the sex racket. Therefore, the plea for bail on the grounds of parity was also rejected.

The court also considered the CDR analysis placing the applicant near the scene of the crime and his eight prior criminal cases of a similar nature. The court highlighted the significant disparity between the amount charged from customers (₹22,000 per victim) and the amount given to the victims (₹5,000), further indicating sexual exploitation through inducement and recruitment.

The court found the judgments cited by the applicant to be factually different from the present case and therefore not helpful.

Acknowledging the ongoing investigation and the absence of any material to doubt the prosecution’s genuineness or inherent improbabilities, the court expressed concern about the possibility of the applicant tampering with witnesses or engaging in similar offences if released. The court also noted that releasing the applicant could prejudice the ongoing investigation, especially considering the quantity of contraband seized (though the specific details of the NDPS charges were less emphasized in this bail order compared to the trafficking charges). The court concluded that further detention of the applicant was necessary for the ongoing investigation.

Considering the accusations, the prima facie evidence, the applicant’s active role, the heinous nature of the alleged offences, and his criminal antecedents, the court deemed that releasing the applicant at this stage would be prejudicial to the interest of society. The court also stated that a liberal approach in granting bail for such offences was unwarranted.

Consequently, the court rejected the bail application of Gopal Dhokal Mandal. The order was pronounced in open court on October 7, 2023, and subsequently signed and uploaded on October 9, 2023. This decision highlights the court’s stringent stance against trafficking and related offences, particularly when there is prima facie evidence of involvement and a history of similar criminal activity.