HC grants bail to woman accused of trafficking minors from Bangladesh | Mumbai News

The case revolves around allegations that she lured a Bangladeshi national under the pretext of employment, then detained and exploited her. In his remarks, Judge Sarang Kotwal noted that not a single witness had been interviewed in the nearly six years since her arrest, justifying a re-examination of her continued detention. As a result, the court ruled in favor of her release on bail, recognizing the need to balance the seriousness of the allegations with the rights of the defendants in the face of lengthy judicial delays.

The case stems from a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the victim at the Faraskhana police station in Pune on November 30, 2018. The FIR makes serious allegations against a woman, Sanjana Biren Panikar, under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012.

The charges specifically include IPC sections 369 (kidnapping), 344 (wrongful confinement), 366(B) (procurement of a minor), 370(A)(ii) (trafficking in human beings), 372 (sale of minors for the purpose of prostitution). ), and 373 (purchasing minors for the purpose of prostitution), in addition to sections 3 (prostitution in any place), 4 (punishment for running a brothel), 5 (punishment for carrying on the business of prostitution) and 6 (prostitution of minors). ). of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Sections 4 (punishment for penetrative sexual assault), 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and 17 (punishment for abetting) of the POCSO Act.

According to prosecutors, the victim was lured away by Panikar with the promise of legitimate employment in India. The prosecution alleges that the victim was persuaded to cross the border and enter India about five months before the FIR. After her arrival, she was allegedly held captive for several days before being forced into prostitution. The prosecution alleges that on November 26, 2018, the victim was handed over to another person who told her that she had been sold ₹30,000. In a state of distress, the victim sought help from passers-by, which ultimately led to her rescue and subsequent lodging of the FIR.

Advocate Ashokkumar Dubey, representing Panikar, argued strongly for her release and highlighted the huge delay in the legal process. He noted that despite almost six years since her arrest, not a single witness had been interviewed, effectively stalling the case. Dubey alleged that the prolonged detention of Panikar as a remand prisoner violated her constitutional right to a speedy trial. He also stressed that the victim's current residence in Bangladesh makes it difficult for her to give a statement, which is crucial to the prosecution's case.

The prosecution, represented by additional public prosecutor Shrikant Yadav, rejected the bail application citing the seriousness of the charge and the potential risk of absconding. Yadav contended that the seriousness of the allegations necessitated a more cautious approach to bail.

Judge Sarang Kotwal acknowledged the seriousness of the offenses but noted that Panikar's length of detention and lack of any witness interviews warranted a reassessment of her release status. Furthermore, he noted that the trial was unlikely to be completed any time soon, undermining the justification for their continued detention.

Taking these circumstances into account, the court finally decided to grant Panikar bail with the condition that her passport must remain on file with the investigating agency as a condition of her release. This judgment not only underlines the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but also reflects judicial recognition of the rights of the accused amid the complexities of an excessively delayed trial.