HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 270 of 2024 Payal Sharma @ Preeti ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand .….Opposite Party Present:- Mr. B.S. Bhandari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Rawat, AGA for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Payal Sharma @ Preeti is in judicial custody in FIR No. 312 of 2023, under Section 370 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, P.S. Mukhani, District Nainial. She has sought her release on bail. 2. This is second bail application of the applicant. Her first bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn on 10.07.2024. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. On 09.12.2023, the police raided a house and arrested various persons, who were indulged in prostitution. One of the victims had then stated that the co-accused and the applicant would bring customers and also bring other girls in the said premises and earn money out of prostitution. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), the victim has not stated that the applicant forced her into prostitution. 2 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that in the FIR and in the statement under Section 161 of the Code, the victim has categorically stated that it is the applicant and the co-accused, who forced her into prostitution and earn money out of it. 7. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding. 8. It is the categorical case of the prosecution that the applicant and the co-accused forced the victim into prostitution. They were bringing other girls and customers in the premises for prostitution. Victim has stated so in her statement under Section 164 of the Code and in her statement under Section 161 of the Code, she has given categorical statement that the applicant and the co-accused forced her into prostitution. 9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the second bail application deserves to be rejected. 10. The second bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 18.03.2025 Avneet/