BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 73 OF 2026 Champa @ Vishnumaya Dinesh Lama .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 82 OF 2026 Babita Mohammed Shabir Shaikh .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Rajesh More, Advocate for Applicants in both Bail Applications.  Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent – State.  Mr. Dhananjay K. Bhosale, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in Bail Application No.73 of 2026.  Ms. Gayatri Pore, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in Bail Application No.82 of 2026. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. More, learned Advocate for Applicants and Mr. Bhosale, Ms. Talhar, learned APP for the State and Ms. Pore, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. This is a group of two (2) Bail Applications. Bail Application No.73 of 2026 is filed by Champa alias Vishnumaya Dinesh Lama whereas, Bail Application No.82 of 2026 is filed by Babita Mohammed Shabir Shaikh. Mr. More appears for both Applicants. Mr. Bhosale appears for Respondent No.2 / Prosecutrix / Victim / First Informant in Bail Application No.73 of 2026 and Ms. Pore appears for 1 of 8 BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc Respondent No.2 / Prosecutrix / Victim / First Informant in Bail Application No.82 of 2026 as appointed Advocates. 3. Champa is arraigned as Accused No.1 and Babita is arraigned as Accused No.2 in the present crime. There are 3 other accused persons. Victim / First Informant filed FIR dated 11.04.2025 bearing CR No.68 of 2025 in Faraskhana Police Station, Pune against 6 accused persons one of whom is unknown for offences punishable under Sections 144, 96, 98, 99, 127(4), 115(2), 351(2), 137(2), 64, 49 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short “PITA”) and Section 4 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accused No.2 is arrested on 03.06.2025 and Accused No. 3 is arrested on 12.04.2025. 4. Statement of victim is recorded, she is a minor – 17 years old and a resident of Bangladesh. She has narrated and recorded identical statement. She states that her friend Sumaya asked her whether she intended to come to India and she entered India illegally and one unknown mediator gave them train tickets to come to Pune. She stated that she lived with Sumaya in Pune for one week after which Sumaya took her to one building in Tulshibaug area, Pune in December 2024 and handed her over to some women including both Applicants. 4.1. According to prosecution case, the women told her that they have purchased her for 3 lakhs from Sumaya. It is prosecution case 2 of 8 BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc that four (4) woman forced her into prostitution and threatened her. According to prosecutrix on 02.04.2025 she escaped and on 07.04.2025 she went to the Police Station and informed police that she was from Bangladesh. On 08.04.2025 she was admitted to Sassoon General Hospital. On 09.04.2025 her statement was recorded and on 11.04.2025 FIR was registered. 5. Mr. More, learned Advocate for Applicants in both Applications would submit that there is no direct or even circumstantial evidence supporting prosecution case that Applicants were engaged in the offence of human trafficking for exploitation. He would submit that PITA is applicable only when a person is found to be involved in human trafficking for prostitution or sexual exploitation but there is no prima facie material or evidence to prove direct or indirect culpability of both Applicants in the present crime. 6. He would submit that the only role attributed to Accused No.2 is of she having removed the SIM card from the mobile phone of the victim forcibly and destroying it so that she could not contact any person. He would contend that this particular act does not establish the ingredients of trafficking or exploitation. He would forcefully submit that both Applicants are residents of Tulshibaug area for the past many years and they are arrested merely on the basis of confessional statement of victim on suspicious grounds without any incriminating material found against them. 3 of 8 BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc 7. He would submit that allegations in the statement of the First Informant is that the Applicants run a brothel and forced her into submission. He would submit that even as per prosecution case and statement of victim there is no explanation offered for the victim to have remained put in the house with the Applicants for more than 5 months from December 2024 and after she leaving / escaping therefrom in April 2025 to have remained absconded for a further 4 days after her alleged escape from custody of Applicants and thereafter approaching the Police Station. He would therefore submit that in such a situation when there is such prima facie ambiguity, Applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail. 8. The prosecution team is led by the Assistant Public Prosecutors and Mr. Bhosle and Ms. Pore as appointed Advocates for Respondent No.2 - Prosecutrix. Since, their submissions are in common they are delineated herein together for brevity purpose and to avoid repetition. The learned appointed Advocates and prosecutors admit to the fact that date of occurrence of offence is from November 2024 to April 2025. Prosecution case is that Applicants forced the victim to establish relations with unknown persons against her will and with common intention abetted the offence of prostitution. Their other charges are about buying the victim from other accused persons (trafficking), threatening the victim, wrongfully restraining the victim and destroying the SIM card from her mobile phone. 4 of 8 BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc 9. They would also argue that Applicants assaulted the victim and have heavily relied upon the Medical Examination Report. Witness statements recorded prima facie border upon the aforesaid charges. It is argued that the flat in the building where she was residing along with Applicants was a brothel. 10. Ms. Pore and Mr. Bhosale in tandem would submit that this is a case of human trafficking involving violence and assault, that victim is minor i.e. she is 16-17 years old at the time of incident. They would submit that even though Applicants may be women and charged with offences under PITA, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail, since there is every likelihood that they will re-offend themselves. Hence they would both vehemently urge the Court to dismiss the present Applications for bail. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates at the bar and perused the record of the case. Submissions made by the learned Advocate have received due consideration of the Court. 12. At the outset it is seen that both Applicants are women and are in jail for almost 18 months, one Applicant is 63 years old and is infirm as argued by Mr. More. Second Applicant is 41 years old and she has one minor son to provide care and support. Case of prosecution is that for five months the victim infact stayed with the Applicants which is prima facie evident from her own statement in the FIR itself. The Medical Examination Report infact supports this 5 of 8 BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc contention. Victim herself has stated that she arrived in Pune within a week from Bangladesh and thereafter stayed with the Applicants in the subject flat from December 2024 to April 2025. 13. Hence, considering the nature of the allegations made against Applicants and the fact that chargesheet has been filed and investigation is completed and most importantly that the victim stayed along with the Applicants for 5 months together without demur or any complaint whatsoever during that period, at this prima facie stage, I am of the opinion that Applicants should be released on bail. 14. Further in order to allay the fear of the victim and submissions made by the prosecution / appointed Advocates about Applicants re-offending themselves, stringent conditions can be undoubtedly imposed. Needless to state that complicity of Applicants in the crime shall be proved at trial. Even though the learned APPs and both the learned appointed Advocates are vehemently opposing grant of bail, I am inclined to grant bail on the basis of the aforesaid prima facie facts and circumstances in present case. 15. In view of the above prima facie observations and facts delineated herein above, both Applicants before me are granted bail. Both Bail Applications are allowed on the following terms and conditions:- (i) Both Applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with 6 of 8 BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc one or two sureties in the like amount; (ii) Both Applicants shall not enter into the territorial jurisdiction of Faraskhana Police Station till the conclusion of trial except attending Court hearing; (iii) Both Applicants shall provide their alternate addresses and name of the nearby Police Station where they shall be residing and mark their attendance on the 1st day of every month between 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m., till the conclusion of the trial; (iv) Both Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise the victim and /or witnesses and / or to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence; (v) Liberty is granted to the State to apply for cancellation of bail if the Applicants commit similar offence in future; (vi) Both Applicants shall attend the trial before the Trial Court regularly on every date unless exempted by the Trial Court for any reason; (vii) Any infraction of the above conditions shall entail the prosecution to seek cancellation of this order. 16. It is clarified that the above observations in this order are 7 of 8 BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any observations on the merits of the case and the trial shall be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence uninfluenced by the present order and strictly in accordance with law. It is also clarified that this common order is for the sake of convenience and Applicants shall not be adversely impacted by the conduct of the other Applicant including but not limited to infringement of bail conditions. 17. Both Bail Applications are allowed and disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 8 of 8 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.17 11:25:46 +0530