Dismissed¶24

Kavita @ Ritu Shankar Prajapati Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Feb 2024BA/726/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court bail rejection; BA 726 of 2024; Manish Pitale, J.; decided 19 July 2024; FIR No.0344 of 2023 Kashimira Police Station Mira-Bhayander; human trafficking; pushing victims into prostitution; decoy customer sting; Rs.2 lakhs accepted; IPC 366-A, 370(1)(3)(4), 372; ITPA Sections 4 and 5; POCSO Sections 17 and 18; minor victim aged 15; WhatsApp chats; strong prima facie case; charge-sheet filed; over one year incarceration; punishment up to life imprisonment; bail application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The entire material on record along with the charge-sheet, including the statements of the two victim girls (one aged about 15, the other about 19) and the WhatsApp chats exchanged with the applicant, makes out a strong prima facie case against the applicant. ¶23

Kavita @ Ritu Shankar Prajapati Singh vs the… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arrested on 11.05.2023 in FIR No.0344 of 2023 (Kashimira Police Station) for trafficking-related offences and incarcerated for more than a year with the charge-sheet filed, should be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Court's answer

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The offences in the present case are punishable with various terms of imprisonment ranging from ten years to life imprisonment.

¶23

Key takeaways

The applicant failed to make out a case in her favour and the bail application is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶24
On perusal of the record, the statement of the informant police officer describes in detail the manner in which the applicant accepted cash of Rs.2 lakhs from a decoy customer and was observed pushing girls into prostitution.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected — trafficking/prostitution case (Bombay HC, Manish Pitale, J., 19.07.2024). Applicant (Kavita @ Ritu Shankar Prajapati Singh), arrested on 11.05.2023 in FIR No.0344 of 2023, Kashimira Police Station, for offences under Ss.366-A, 370(1), 370(3), 370(4) and 372 IPC; Ss.4 and 5, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; and Ss.17 and 18, POCSO Act, 2012, sought bail after over a year's incarceration with the charge-sheet filed. FIR arose from a decoy-customer trap laid by a police team, during which the applicant allegedly accepted Rs.2 lakhs. The Court found the statements of the two victim girls (aged about 15 and 19) and WhatsApp chats exchanged with the applicant sufficient to make out a strong prima facie case, noted punishments ranging from ten years to life imprisonment, held that the applicant had failed to make out a case, and dismissed the bail application.

¶1

13_BA726_24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO.726 OF 2024

¶4

Kavita @ Ritu Shankar Prajapati Singh … Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Prablin Singh Abrol for Applicant. Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. Dheeraj Panchange for Respondent No.2. Mr. Dhanawade, PSI, Kashimira Police Station.

¶6

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : JULY 19, 2024

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

¶9

In the present case, the applicant was arrested on 11.05.2023 i.e. the date on which FIR No.0344 of 2023 was registered at Kashimira Police Station, District : Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar against the applicant, for offences under Sections 366-A, 370(1), 370(3), 370(4) and 372 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; and Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶10

The FIR was registered on the statement of a police officer, who was a part of the team that arranged for a decoy customer to trap the applicant, who was allegedly involved in the activities of pushing the victims into prostitution.

¶11

On the basis of the information received, when the decoy customer was sent, the applicant came with the victim girls and accepted

¶12

MINALSANDIP Digitally signedby MINALSANDIP PARABDate: PARAB 2024.07.2010:41:44 +0530

¶13

1/3

¶14

13_BA726_24.doc

¶15

an amount of Rs.2 lakhs from the decoy customer and at this point, the police team apprehended the applicant.

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already suffered incarceration for more than a year. The charge-sheet has been already filed and the trial will take substantial period of time. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated as she had gone to meet the victim girls for her own personal work.

¶17

On the other hand, the learned APP has opposed the present application, submitting that the material on record, particularly the statements of the two victim girls and the WhatsApp chats exchanged with the applicant, shows the direct involvement of the applicant in such serious offences. It is submitted that the punishment for some of the offences is upto life imprisonment and therefore, the applicant suffering incarceration for slightly more than one year, cannot be a ground for enlarging her on bail.

¶18

This Court has perused the material on record. The statement of the informant police officer, leading to registration of the FIR describes in detail as to the manner in which the applicant accepted cash amount of Rs.2 lakhs and also the manner in which she was observed to be pushing the girls into prostitution.

¶19

The statements of the two girls are crucial. One of girls was minor, aged about 15 years and the other was aged about 19 years. Both of them have stated in detail about the involvement of the applicant in taking the girls to the place of the incident and the manner in which the applicant claimed that the girls would be paid handsome amount as they were virgins.

¶20

The entire material on record along with the charge-sheet,

¶21

2/3

¶22

13_BA726_24.doc

¶23

including the aforesaid statements of the girls and the WhatsApp chats exchanged with the applicant, does make out a strong prima facie case against her. The offences, in the present case, are punishable for various terms of imprisonment, ranging from ten years to life imprisonment.

¶24

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has failed to make out a case in her favour in the present application. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

¶25

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶26

Minal Parab

¶27

3/3

Kavita @ Ritu Shankar Prajapati Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavita @ Ritu Shankar Prajapati Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Janak Jitendra Shah Vs Manjula Jitendra Shah and Asit Atul Shah (Deceased)

Sabira Abubakar Abbasi and 5 Ors. Vs Rajubhai Khubbhai Abbasi and 2 Ors. and Fazal R ABBASI(2A to 2C) and 2 Ors.

Pankaj Jamnadas Khakhar Vs Bharat Jamnadas Khakhar - Caveator

Lords Inn Hotels and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Vikas Seth Trading as Lord Residency Manali

Leela Ajit Deshpande vs Meenal J. Chatterji Alias Mrs Meenal Chatterji Alias Mrs Meenal Commodore J. Chatterji Alias

Arun Govind Phalke vs Late Govind Maruti Phalke Since Deceased