KHUSHI HARIKISHAN MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE submissions of the Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date and the Judgment was reserved. Tpday these Petitions are kept for dictation of the Judgment.

(2.) WITH a view tq appreciate the submissions made by the Counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case. It appears that on receiving specific information, the police raided a room in Hotel Holiday Inn' in Mumbai. With the help of the bogus customer, police entered the said room. In the said room, a woman by the name Sarika was found. Certain articles found in the room were seized by the police. It appears that there were two other ladies in the room including the Petitioner in these Petitions. According to the police the Petitioner disclosed that she was working as prostitute. According to the case of the police, earlier the Petitioner was taken in custody in connection with C. R. No. 18 of 2004 registered with Khar Police Station in connection with the offence punishable under sections 4,5,7 (1) (b) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1956 ). It is alleged that the petitioner was handed over in custody of her relatives on 2nd June 2004 and again on 5th August 2004 she was found in hotel Holiday Inn. The offence was registered under Sections 4,5,7 (1) (b) of the said act of 1956 against the two accused persons. Viz. Mishtakim Ahmed alias Robbin azim Ahmed Shaikh and Chetan Laxmidas sohani. The Accused persons were arrested and were produced before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th court, Mumbai on 6th August 2004 and the application for remand was moved by the sub Inspector of social services Branch of crime Branch, C. I. D. Mumbai. It appears that the Petitioner was also brought before the learned Magistrate. While passing the order on remand application, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order directing that the Petitioner should be kept in Navjeevan Mahila Sudhar griha at Mumbai and shall be produced before him on 7th August 2004. He directed that the girls be examined under Section 15 of the said Act of 1956.

(3.) IT appears that an application was filed on August 2004 by one Advocate Shri jaiswal on behalf of the Petitioner praying that she may be set free. The said application was rejected by the learned Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 17th August 2004. It appears that on 13th august 2004 an application was made before the learned Magistrate for grant of time in favour of the Probation Officer for submission of the report. In a separate report dated 13th August 2004 submitted by the senior Inspector of Police, it was stated that office bearers of Navjeevan Mahila vastigrina, Mumbai were making enquiry as regards the Petitioner. It appears that on 30th august 2004 an application was made on behalf of the Petitioner praying that she may be released as she been confined to Protective Home for a period of more than 21 days. By order dated 10th September 2004, the learned Magistrate rejected the said application. An Appeal was preferred before the sessions Court by the Petitioner for challenging the order of the learned Magistrate. In the said Appeal, an application for bail was filed on behalf of the Petitioner by her advocate. The; said application came to be rejected by order dated 1st October 2004.