1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4578 OF 2008 Vicky @ Kapil @ Vivek Babu Zalim Singh. ..... Petitioner. V/s The State of Maharashtra ......Respondent. ------ Mr. Nitin Sejpal with Miss. Pooja Bhojne for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 9th February, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This is an application for bail. Petitioner came to be arrested on 22.02.2007 for the offence punishable under the Emigration Act read with sections 4, 5, 6 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act read with sections 376, 420, 341, 342, 354, 506 (Part II), 323, 193, 504, 177, 108, 108-A read with section 54 of the Indian Penal Code and, in the alternative, read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On 20/05/2006, prior approval was granted by the Additional Commissioner of Police, CID, Mumbai under section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act, 1999 for invoking provisions of the said Act. On 16/04/2007, sanction was granted by the competent authority under 2 section 23(2) of the MCOC Act to file charge- sheet. Petitioner filed application for bail before the Special Court. However, the said application was rejected on 22/04/2008. Prosecution case is that the original accused No.1 Ravi Prakash Jailm Singh entered into criminal conspiracy with others, including the present original accused No.4 who is the brother of accused No.1 of supplying girls to accused No.1 and accused No.3. The allegation is that the representation was made to the girls that they would be getting job as dance bar girls in Uganda in a hotel, though, in reality, those girls were being sent there for sexual exploitation. After the girls were sent to Uganda, accused Nos. 1 and 3 used to threaten them and used to put them in prostitution racket. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the provisions of MCOC Act would not be made applicable in respect of the present case since other accused were residing in Uganda which was beyond the territory of India. It is further submitted that so far as present petitioner is concerned, he had sent these dance bar girls to Uganda who had gone their on their own. He submitted that for what had transpired in Uganda, petitioner could not be held responsible. He submitted that the husbands of the dance bar girls had accompanied them to the airport and they had gone their without any coercion. It is submitted that these girls had worked as dance bar girls in India and had gone to Uganda for the same purpose. It is submitted that there was no question of sexual exploitation. 3 4. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has filed an affidavit-in-reply in which chronology of events has been given. It is submitted that looking at the nature of the allegations which are made against the petitioner, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. 5. Since the provisions of the MCOC Act are made applicable in this case, the Court has to be satisfied that the petitioner is not likely to be convicted for the said offence for which he is charged by the prosecution. In the present case, the allegation is of conspiracy and it is alleged that the petitioner is a member of an organised crime syndicate which is headed by accused No.1 and that there is a prostitution racket run by all the accused and the modus operandi is to lure the girls from India with a promise to give them good job in Uganda and after they were sent there, to exploit them sexually. The allegations reveal that the applicant is a co-conspirator who was instrumental in sending the girls from India to Uganda. The conspiracy, therefore, had taken place in Maharashtra and, thereafter, they were sent to Uganda. Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Penal Code lays down the extent and jurisdiction of the criminal court in India and the said provisions clearly lay down that even if the offence is committed outside India, the citizens could be tried for the said offence in India. That being the position, in the present case, the question of seeking permission of sanction from the Central Government under section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not arise. Looking at the material which is on record, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. Applicant for bail is rejected. Trial, however, is expedited. 4 (V.M. KANADE, J.)