Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2024
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1 MCRC-12872-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 8 th OF JULY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12872 of 2024
(MAYA
Vs
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Appearance:
(SHRI VIVEK SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT)
(SHRI HEMANT SHARMA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
(MS. NEHA NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
(SHRI RAJESH JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
ORDER
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant/accused, relating to FIR/Crime No.56/2024 dated (not mentioned) registered at Police Station - Afzalpur, District Mandsaur (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 370 and 372 of IPC alongwith 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Immoral Trafficking Act and 3 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
2. Prosecution story, in brief is that on 11.03.2024, a discreet information was received by the police that the applicant has engaged her minor daughter aged below 15 years in the activity of prostitution for monetary benefit. The police party proceeded towards the house of the applicant. A person named Abhitej Layel was sent to the house of the applicant who acted as a customer carrying 1 note of Rs.200/- and 3 notes of Rs.300/-. He went and communicated with the applicant and the applicant agreed for the prostitution by her daughter/prosecutrix and she took the currency notes given by Abhitej.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 10-07-2024 10:53:202 MCRC-12872-2024 Thereafter, Abhitej came out of the house of applicant and gave signal to the police party. The police party came there and caught hold the applicant. Aforesaid currency notes were recovered from the applicant. During inquiry, the prosecutrix revealed that her mother/applicant has engaged her into prostitution in return of money from the customers. During search of the room, 5 unused condoms and a pack of cigarettes on the bed under the pillow were recovered and seized from the possession of the applicant. An FIR was lodged against the applicant consequently.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant has not committed the offence and has falsely been implicated in the case. It is further submitted that after filing of charge-sheet, the prosecutrix (PW/1) has been examined before the Trial Court but she has completely turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution. Applicant is in custody since 11.03.2024. The applicant is a married lady, therefore, recovery of unused condoms cannot lead to assumption that she carries on prostitution by her daughter. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Trial will take considerable long time for its disposal, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State has opposed the prayer and submitted that four criminal cases were pending against the applicant. In a likewise case out of them, she has been acquitted. There was one other criminal case u/S 34(1) of the M. P. Excise Act, wherein fine was imposed upon her. Two other offences under the provisions of IPC are still pending against her. The prosecutrix being influenced by the applicant has not supported the case of prosecution but other material witnesses are yet to be examined. The allegation levelled against the applicant is serious in nature Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 10-07-2024 10:53:20 3 MCRC-12872-2024 therefore, she is not entitled for bail.
5. Learned counsel for the objector on behalf of an NGO submits that on 07.03.2024, a written complaint had been filed before the S.P. Mandsaur regarding minor children, who have been forced into prostitution in Mandsaur Area. Upon the aforesaid complaint, the police had taken action. The offence is serious in nature therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
6. Learned counsel for complainant/husband of the applicant pleaded that she has no objection if the applicant is granted bail.
7. Having considered the rival submissions and after perusal of the case- diary so also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the offence is heinous in nature, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicant. Resultantly, application for bail is dismissed.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE gp Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 10-07-2024 10:53:20