LAWS(BOM)-2019-2-298

SATYAVATI KRUSHNA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 25, 2019
Satyavati Krushna Pillai Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is arrested in CR No.88 of 2018 registered with D.B. Marg Police Station for offences u/s 308, 366, 366A, 366B, 368, 370(3), (4), (5), 370A(i)(ii), 371, 372, 373 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of PITA Act and Section 4, 8, 17 of POCSO Act.

(2.) The prosecution case is that secret information was received from NGO about prostitution activities being conducted at Dinesh Building, 2nd Floor, Room No.11, Shamrao Vitthal Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai. Accordingly with the help of bogus customer and pancha, raid was conducted at the said premises. During the course of raid, 11 women came to be rescued and the applicant was arrested along with other accused. On completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated in this case. The offences as alleged are not attracted against the applicant. The girls/women found in the premises were indulging in prostitution as per their own wish and hence S.5 of PITA Act and Section 370(3) of IPC would not be applicable in the present case. The applicant had allegedly conducting brothel. It is submitted that Section 370 of IPC is not attracted against applicant as there are no allegations of human trafficking and wrongful confinement against the accused. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, the statements of 11 victim girls were recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. However, nothing is mentioned about forceful prostitution by the said victims in their statements. They have not referred the name of applicant. It is submitted that the applicant was in police custody for sufficient time and at present she is in judicial custody. The investigation is over and the charge sheet is filed. She is permanent resident and having deep roots in society and the question of absconding does not arise. There is no question of any recovery from the applicant and further detention is not necessary.