1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAQL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1559 OF 2010 Rupali @ Mehendi Anil Pawar .. Applicant Vs 1.State of Maharashtra.. 2.Union of India .. Respondents Ms Suvarna V.Vast, for the applicant. Mr Y.M.Nakhwa, APP, a/w A.S.Gadkari, for respondent no.2-CBI. Ms S.V.Gajare, APP, for respondent no.1-State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 06/05/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is the second application for bail. The earlier application was rejected vide order dated 9.4.2009 on merits. 3. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R. No. RC 2/S/2008 of CBI, registered with Special Crime Branch, Mumbai. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 342, 366(A), 373 of IPC and sections 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset, invited my attention to the order passed by this Court dated 9.3.2010 in T 2 Criminal Application No.4943 of 2009 and submitted that for the reasons recorded by the learned Judge in the said order the present applicant is also entitled for bail. That application was filed by the co-accused Rajdev Kumar Mathura Yadav @ Pappu. The short question that was considered by the learned Judge while dealing with his application for bail was whether the constitutional right of a fair and expeditious trial on the applicant has been violated entitling him to be released on bail. The grievance of the applicant in that application was that though the applicant had been arrested nearly 18 months ago on 30.9.2008, the trial was not being held and, that too, on account of the lapses solely attributable to the State. The learned Judge, thereafter, proceeded to record in the order the dates on which the Sessions Case was kept for hearing and the reasons why it was adjourned. It appears that by an order dated 8.2.2010, a report was called from the learned District & Sessions Judge as to why the trial was delayed and even a charge had not been framed. After considering the said report, the learned Judge in paragraph 7 of the order, held thus: “7. The dates mentioned above are as reported by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. They clearly demonstrate that the trial could not be proceeded and even a charge could not be framed against the applicant, though applicant is in custody for nearly 18 months. The report of the Sessions Judge discloses that the major, if not the sole, reason for 3 the delay in the trial is attributable to the prosecution whether it be the CBI or State Government. This has resulted in infringement of the fundamental right of the applicant for the speedy trial. In the circumstances, irrespective of the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I pass the following order.” 5, Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, the learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the statements of the girls placed on record and the owner of the property and submitted that the present applicant is entitled for bail on parity. The case of applicant Rajdev Kumar, who has been released on bail vide order dated 9.3.2010, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, was more severe than the present applicant. She further submits that the applicant, while in custody, has delivered a female child and her baby is ten months. She is in custody for nearly 19 months and she was not residing in the brothel and she used to visit the said place regularly in the evening. Learned APP submits that as per the instructions the applicant does not have permanent resident in Maharashtra and, therefore, if the court is inclined to grant her bail, she may be directed to furnish local surety and report to the concerned police station once in a week. 6. It is true that in the statement of Laxmi Parab, the owner of the premises where the brothel was being run, she has stated 4 that Rajdev Kumar was one of the accused persons, who used to help the main accused Raju Gupta and Pappu Gupta for using the girls including the minor girl for prostitution. Having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the order dated 9.3.2010 passed in Criminal Application No.4943 of 2009, I am left with no option but to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, I pass the following order. Applicant Rupali @ Mehendi Anil Pawar be released on bail on her executing PR Bond of Rs.20,000/- with two local sureties for the like amount, subject to the conditions that (i) the applicant shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses; (ii) the applicant shall report her presence in the office of CBI, Special Crime Branch, New Mumbai once a week,i.e on Friday between 10 and 11 am; and (iii) within 48 hours of her release, the applicant shall inform to the CBI, SCB her present residential address, telephone number and cell number and shall intimate any change therein within 48 hours of the change. Any breach of the conditions shall result in cancellation of the bail. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 5