MANOUTI VAIDH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As declared by the petitioner, this is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that one Nupur, who was neighbour of the prosecurix, allured her stating that she can earn lot of money. The minor prosecutrix became ready to accompany her. She took her Delhi and introduced her with her badi mummy (aunty) viz. Manouti (the petitioner here). They both tried her to convince and to push her in prostitution. They explained and lured her that she can earn money by prostitution but the minor girl refused to accept the proposal and asked them to send her back. After some request, when she assured that she will not take any action against them and will not reveal anything before anyone, they became ready to send her back. Nupur brought her back to Delhi Railway Station and gave her Rs.450/- but, here again, she tried to get her agree for prostitution. When she threatened that she will make a claimer, Nupur fled away from the spot. In her police statement, the prosecutrix has made allegation that the petitioner also tried to push her in the prostitution but in her Court statement recorded on the same day, she has made no allegation against the petitioner and has only stated that one aunty asked her not to enter in the profession (prostitution) as she has already spoiled her life but she (prosecutrix) should not spoil her life and on her suggestion, she refused to enter in the prostitution and came back home.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State fairly admitted that there is nothing on record except these two statements of the prosecutrix and also there is no explanation regarding the subsequent Court statement of the prosecutrix.