ANTHONY BRITTO Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Senior Counsel on behalf of the applicant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State/respondent.

(2.) The applicant is accused No. 6 in a case filed before the Children's Court for the State of Goa, Panaji and having been refused bail twice, first by Order dated-29-12-2006 and then by Order dated19-1-2007 has approached this Court for the same. THE applicant has been prosecuted in the said case under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 8 (2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003. THE allegation against him is that he procured the other female accused along with a minor and pressed them into prostitution and employed the male accused as pimps for arranging customers for them and he is living on their earnings.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent, this position is contested by submitting that though no birth certificate of the victim was available, the radiological test carried out on the said victim shows that the said victim was a minor. It is not necessary for the purpose of deciding this bail application to enter into the said controversy. The learned Children's Court is bound to look into that aspect before proceeding with the trial against the applicant/a-6. There is no dispute that the maximum sentence which could be imposed on the applicant/a-6 is 7 years as is stated on behalf of both the parties. In other words, the offences in which the applicant/a-6 is involved are not very serious so as to deprive him of being admitted to bail. As regards the likelihood of the accused repeating the offences and not being available for the trial, those apprehensions could be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions.