1 Cr. Misc. Appln 1415/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1415 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 858 OF 2009 Geeta Kancha Tamang .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. B. A. Aloor for the Applicant. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date of reserving the order : 1st February, 2011 Date of Pronouncing the order : 8th February, 2011 ORDER 1. This is the second application for bail. Applicant was initially arrested on 08.09.2008 in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 344, 363, 366 (a), 372, 373 & 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (ITPA). The accused has been convicted essentially under Section 6 of the ITPA for detaining persons for the purpose of prostitution. 2. The accused has been refused bail on merits by this Court earlier. The case involves trafficking in minor as well as major girls. The accused has been shown to be a brothel owner/brothel keeper. The building in which the business of prostitution has been shown to be carried on is stated to belong to one Pardeshi but has been stated to be tenanted or licenced to the Applicant. The brothel has been sought to be closed by an order 2 Cr. Misc. Appln 1415/10 passed on 15.09.2010 under Section 18 (1) (B) of the ITPA. The Applicant has relied upon this order to show that it has been served upon one Chandresh Ghashiram Saraf on house NO. 601/1, Rasta Peth, Pune. The applicant, therefore, contends that the said Saraf was the owner of the premises and not the applicant. 3. It is not known how and why he is shown to be the owner. It is not shown whether the copy notice shown to be addressed to the said Saraf was addressed rightly to the said person and has been received by him. 4. In the criminal trial, the applicant was accused on ill-treating minor as well as major girls, detaining them for prostitution and carrying on such business for gain by collecting the money from the customers directly. Upon a raid being carried out, certain girls were rescued. One of them has deposed before the Court about the activities of the applicant. The learned Judge has considered the evidence led by the Police Officer, panch as well as the victim girl amongst others. The accused-applicant was shown to be the owner of the premises as disclosed by herself at the time of the raid. 5. On merits no case for grant of bail is at all made out. It has been observed earlier by the Court that the constitutional right of other citizens not to be trafficked under the prohibition contained in Article 23 of the Constitution of India requires the Court to reject the bail application. Besides since the accused has been pursuing the business of a brothel and was arrested therefrom, the offence is prone to repetition. It is as 3 Cr. Misc. Appln 1415/10 much a duty of the Court to protect other victims, minor as well as major from falling a prey to the activities of the applicant, if she is released on bail pending the Appeal and pending the reconsideration of her case of merits. 6. The application is completely devoid on merits has to be rejected. 7. It is contended that the Applicant has undergone 2 years and 4 months of imprisonment out of 7 years of imprisonment sentenced under the impugned judgment. That does not also make out a case for grant of bail. In any event the applicant has herself shown in her synopsis that she has been released on parole on a number of occasions. That period also shall have to be considered in computing her total sentence. 8. In fact the applicant is the only accused. The judgment has considered the evidence of only six witnesses. The case of the applicant on merits itself can be decided. The applicant shall file a private paper book and apply for placing the Criminal Appeal on board of the concerned Court for determination of the Appeal on merits. 9. Bail application is rejected. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)