Bombay High Court
Kamladevi W/O. Rameshwar Sheorain vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Ram Nagar, ... on 9 August, 2021
Author: Pushpa V. Ganediwala
Bench: Pushpa V. Ganediwala
ba614.2.21.odt
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Criminal Application (BA) No.614 of 2021
(Kamladevi w/o R. Sheoram Vs. State of Maharashtra )
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri Vinod Kumar, Advocate for applicant.
Shri A.R.Chutke, APP for respondent.
CORAM : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.
DATE : AUGUST 9, 2021.
1. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri A.R.Chutke, learned APP for the respondent.
2. This is second bail application before this Court for releasing the applicant on bail in Crime No.1559/2019 dated 31.12.2019 registered at Ram Nagar Police Station, Chandrapur, District Chandrapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 366-A, 367, 328, 376-D, 370, 323, 354 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prohibition of Immoral Trafficking Act, 1956.
3. The applicant is said to be arrested on 31.1.2020. First Criminal Application (BA) bearing No.912 of 2020, came to be withdrawn by the learned counsel for the ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 02:22:09 ::: ba614.2.21.odt 2/5 applicant when this Court expressed its view for not passing any favorable order.
4. The allegations against the present applicant are that the present applicant and her sons purchased prosecutrix when she was 13-14 years old for Rs.1,50,000/- and subjected her for repeated sexual assaults by her three sons, on the pretext of marriage with one of the sons. All her sons are stated to be co-accused in this case. It is further alleged that the prosecutrix was also subjected to physically torture by the present applicant.
5. As per the prosecution story, the prosecutrix was kidnapped by one of the co-accused, when she was 12-13 years of age. A missing report was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix on 28.6.2010, at Ram Nagar Police Station, Chandrapur. Since then, the prosecutrix was untraced. That during the investigation of zero FIR which was lodged at Yamuna-nagar Police Station, Haryana, it was transpired that the complainant is the same girl who was missing from 2010. During investigation, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded. From the statement of the prosecutrix, it revealed that she was kidnapped by the accused persons in the year 2010 and was taken from one place to another and sold to several people for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and so on. It also revealed from her statement that she was not only sold for satisfying the sexual ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 02:22:09 ::: ba614.2.21.odt 3/5 lust of various persons but, she was brutally ill-treated and physically assaulted.
6. The learned APP Shri. A. R. Chutke appearing on behalf of the State strongly opposed the prayer for grant of bail considering the prima facie involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the serious crime.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any change in circumstances from the date of the earlier application, which was withdrawn when this Court expressed disinclination to pass any favorable order. However, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the prosecutrix herself is shown as a proclaimed offender in Criminal Case No.43-2 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambala in judgment dated 3.6.2016.
8. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment, in fact, would reveal that in the Crime which was registered for the offence under the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, (for short, ITPA, 1956) two girls (including prosecutrix) were found indulged in prostitution with two customers on 3.9.2011. These two girls were shown as proclaimed offender. The date of birth, as per the prosecution story of the prosecutrix is 10.4.1998, which would show that at the relevant time, she was 13-14 years of age. It appears she was the victim of offence under the ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 02:22:09 ::: ba614.2.21.odt 4/5 ITPA, 1956 in the said case. Be that as it may, there is no relevancy for considering this point in favour of the applicant for grant of bail. On the contrary, it supports the case of the prosecution that the minor victim girl was used for the business of prostitution by the accused persons
9. A perusal of the statement of the girl in the chargesheet as pointed out by the learned APP Shri. Chutke would reveal a serious nature of crime at the hands of the present applicant. It is alleged that the prosecutrix was purchased when she was minor and subjected her to repeated sexual intercourse for the period of 7 years to satisfy the lust of three sons of the applicant, on the pretext of marriage with one of the sons. Somehow, the victim could rescue herself from the clutches of the accused and co- accused.
10. The learned counsel for the applicant also seeks bail of the present applicant on the ground of parity as one of her sons by name Krishna Sheorain has been released on bail by this Court, vide order dated 7.4.2020 in Criminal Application (BA) No.198/2021.
11. A perusal of the aforesaid order would reveal that role attributed to the co-accused i.e. her son is that he sexually exploited the prosecutrix. However, the role attributed to the present applicant is that she used to tell the prosecutrix that ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 02:22:09 ::: ba614.2.21.odt 5/5 they purchased her for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the co-accused. She was purchased to satisfy lust of her three sons and also subjected her to ill-treatment and this went on for seven years. The victim was resident of Chandrapur and while she was of age 13 years, she was kidnapped and was sold at various hands for the purpose of prostitution and ultimately, she was purchased by the present applicant and her sons for the aforesaid purpose.
12. Considering the nature of the allegations and the role attributed to the present applicant, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. The Criminal Application deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.
JUDGE ambulkar ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 02:22:09 :::