Pooja v. State of Uttarakhand

Bail granted – Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Sections 3, 4 and 5

Uttarakhand HC1 Aug 2025BA1/1212/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court, Rakesh Thapliyal, J., order dated 01.08.2025 in BA1 Nos. 1212, 1252, 1253 of 2025: bail allowed to women accused Pooja, Vandana and Seema @ Simran under Sections 3, 4 and 5, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, FIR No.0422 of 2025, PS Kotwali Haridwar; parity with bailed co-accused Anand Kumar Jha and Love Kush; personal bond and two sureties each; no opinion on merits; State represented by G.S. Sandhu, AAG and Sandeep Sharma, AGA; counsel for applicants Gaurav Singh.

What did the court decide?

All three bail applications allowed; applicants Pooja, Vandana and Seema alias Simran to be released on bail on executing personal bonds and furnishing two reliable sureties each, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to cooperation with the ongoing investigation. ¶¶6

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			BA1 No. 1212 of 2025 with BA1 No.1252 of 2025 BA1 No.1253 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned AAG along with Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present applicants–Smt. Pooja W/o Late Neeraj, Mrs. Vandana W/o Arvind and Mrs. Seema @ Simran W/o Late Banta, are praying for bail in relation first information report dated 27.06.2025 bearing FIR No.0422 of 2025, Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar, wherein all these three applicants along with one Anand Kumar Jha and Love Kush have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the present applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated and no incriminating materials were recovered from them. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants also argued that the search and raid was not conducted as per Section 15(2) of the Act and all these three applicants have no previous criminal history. Apart from this, he submits that the two other co-accused, namely, Love Kush and Anand Kumar Jha were enlarged on bail by the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that Anand Kumar Jha

SL.
No.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA1 No. 1212 of 2025
with
BA1 No.1252 of 2025
BA1 No.1253 of 2025
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel
for the applicants.
2.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned AAG along
with Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA
for the State.
3.
Present applicants–Smt. Pooja W/o
Late Neeraj, Mrs. Vandana W/o Arvind and
Mrs. Seema @ Simran W/o Late Banta, are
praying for bail in relation first information
report
dated
27.06.2025
bearing
FIR
No.0422 of 2025, Police Station Kotwali
Haridwar, District Haridwar, wherein all
these three applicants along with one
Anand Kumar Jha and Love Kush have
been implicated for the offences punishable
under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
4.
Learned counsel for the applicants
argued that the present applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated
and no incriminating materials were
recovered from them.
5.
Learned counsel for the applicants
also argued that the search and raid was
not conducted as per Section 15(2) of the
Act and all these three applicants have no
previous criminal history. Apart from this,
he submits that the two other co-accused,
namely, Love Kush and Anand Kumar Jha
were enlarged on bail by the trial Court.
6.
Learned counsel for the applicants
further argued that Anand Kumar Jha

was granted bail by the In-charge Sessions
Judge, Haridwar pursuant to the order
dated 26.07.2025 passed in Bail
Application No.717 of 2025 and another
co-accused, namely, Love Kush was
granted bail by the learned Sessions
Judge, Haridwar by order dated
18.07.2025 in Bail Application No.695 of
2025.
7. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned AAG
argued that Love Kush was granted bail in
the wrong premise by the learned Sessions
Judge, Haridwar by giving reference of
only Section 3 of the Act.
8. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned AAG for
the State after gone through with this
order dated 18.07.2025 submits that the
conclusion as drawn is based upon only
Section 3, but there is no any observation,
conclusion and the finding in respect of
Section 5 though the accused person Love
Kush was made an accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of
the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956,
Police Station Kotwali Haridwar.
9. Mr. G.S. Sandhu further submits
that admittedly the another co-accused
Anand Kumar Jha was enlarged on bail by
the Incharge Sessions Judge, Haridwar by
order dated 26.07.2025, therefore, on this
account alone, these three applicants, who
are, in fact, the women and two of them
are the widows may be admitted to bail.
10. Be that as it may, admittedly, the
two co-accused have been enlarged on bail
but particularly in respect of other co-
accused, namely, Akash Kumar Jha who
was granted bail, this Court is of the view
that the applicants, beingwomen, also

was granted bail by the In-charge Sessions

Judge, Haridwar pursuant to the order

dated
26.07.2025
passed
in
Bail

Application No.717 of 2025 and another

co-accused,
namely,
Love
Kush
was

granted bail by the learned Sessions

Judge,
Haridwar
by
order
dated

18.07.2025 in Bail Application No.695 of

2025.

7.
Mr.
G.S.
Sandhu,
learned
AAG

argued that Love Kush was granted bail in

the wrong premise by the learned Sessions

Judge, Haridwar by giving reference of

only Section 3 of the Act.

8.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned AAG for

the State after gone through with this

order dated 18.07.2025 submits that the

conclusion as drawn is based upon only

Section 3, but there is no any observation,

conclusion and the finding in respect of

Section 5 though the accused person Love

Kush was made an accused for the offence

punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of

the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956,

Police Station Kotwali Haridwar.

9.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu further submits

that admittedly the another co-accused

Anand Kumar Jha was enlarged on bail by

the Incharge Sessions Judge, Haridwar by

order dated 26.07.2025, therefore, on this

account alone, these three applicants, who

are, in fact, the women and two of them

are the widows may be admitted to bail.

10. Be that as it may, admittedly, the

two co-accused have been enlarged on bail

but particularly in respect of other co-

accused, namely, Akash Kumar Jha who

was granted bail, this Court is of the view

that the applicants, beingwomen, also

Pooja v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Hussain Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sanit Alias Sumit Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Aditya Alias Sagar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jatin Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Yogesh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mohd Tasleem Vs State of Uttarakhand