VIJAY PRAKASH PATHAK, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri D.S.Mishra Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the informant/complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) THIS bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Smt.Afzal Begum, who is involved in Case Crime No. 274 of 2005, under Section 3/5/6//9 PIT Act and Sections 323, 504, 506, 109, 117, 366A/373 IPC, PS Maduadih, District Varanasi.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that according to FIR version, on receiving information, the complainant who is the President of the Organization 'Gudiya' along with his wife and its other associates conducted a raid on 25.10.2005 in certain houses of the accused persons and in the said raid, from the three houses of co -accused Rahmat (now deceased) and from one house of co -accused Smt.Tulsi, 31 girls who were said to be indulged in prostitution were recovered, out of which from one house of co -accused Rahmat, 8 minor girls, from his second house, 12 minor girls and from the third house, 7 minor girls and from the house of co -accused Smt.Tulsi, four minor girls are alleged to have been recovered. It is submitted that the applicant was neither arrested on the spot nor any minor or major girls or ladies were recovered from her possession and the only allegation made against her is that she managed the said illegal prostitution in one of the houses of his husband Rahmat ( now deceased). It is further submitted that the alleged raid was made by the complainant along with his wife and associates who had no authority under law to conduct such raid as according to Section 13 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, only special police officer appointed by or on behalf of Government in each area under this Act is competent to investigate into such offences. It is further contended that challenging the charge sheet in the said Case Crime No.274 of 2005, Criminal Misc. Application No. 10210 of 2006 was filed before the High Court in which on 25.09.2006 an interim order was passed and the proceedings of the said Case were stayed but due to non appearance of the counsel for the applicant no 14.10.2011, the said interim order was vacated and the application was disposed of. It is further contended that the applicant was never doing the work of prostitution after inducing major or minor girls/ladies but she was only doing the work of dancing and singing and was earning her livelihood as such. It is further contended that the complainant was recovering illegal money from the applicant and other dancers after giving threat to them and on non -fulfilment of said illegal demand, the present FIR has been got lodged against the applicant and others. It is further contended that the complainant and his associates illegally conducted the said raid and also committed loot -pat and mar peet with the dancers for which several dancers including Reshma and others also got lodged FIR against the complainant and his associates which were registered as Case Crime Nos. 274A to 274H all of the year 2005, under Sections 392, 394, 342, 427, 373, 382, 452,506 IPC and after investigation in the matter, charge sheet was also submitted against the complainant. It is further contended that some of the alleged recovered ladies/girls ( victims), including Rakhi, Seema, Rekha, Roshni, Hema, Gungi, Jaya, Dolly, Sama, Manju, Rita and Rupa in their statement before the Investigating Officer had totally denied to have done the work of prostitution rather they stated that they were doing the work of dancing and singing and further that they were forcibly taken to the police station. It is further contended that all other co -accused persons in the present case have been released on bail and hence the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. It is lastly contended that the applicant is an old lady, aged about 60 years and is in Jail since 23.11.2011 i.e. for more than 3 years and 3 months and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and if she is released on bail, there is no chance of her absconding or misusing the liberty of bail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.;