LexGURIA, SWAYAM SEVI SANSTHAN versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 761
~
GURIA, SWAYAM SEVI SANSTHAN
A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1373 of 2009)
JULY 31, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - ss. 5, 6, and 9
- Arrest of persons allegedly involved in purchase of girls for
facilitating immoral traffic of prostitution - Bail application filed c
by them rejected by Sessions Judge - High Court however
~
granted bail - Justification of - Held: Question as regards
grant of bail should be considered having regard to gravity
of the offence wherewith the accus~d .were charged - High
Court erred in dealing with the matte(in a cursory manner -
D
However, keeping in vie\('/ the peculiarfacts and circumstances
of the case, that as. the accused were granted bail long time
back and in some cases trials had aiso· been concluded, it
would not be proper to. cancel the bail at this stage - Penal
Code, 1860- ss: ·323, 504, 506, 117, 366A and 373 - Crime
E
rir
against Women ""'" Bail.
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Object of -
Distinction between rescued children including girls and
persons organizing such immoral traffic in a systematic
F
manner and otherwise aiding and abetting commission of
offences thereunder - Need for a well-thought out plan for
rehabilitation of rescued children in society .bY bringing in
suitable legislations or schemes.
Persons allegedly involved in the purchase of girls
G
for facilitating the immoral traffic of prostitution were
arrested and charge sheeted under ss. 5; 6 and 9 of the
~
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and. provisions of
IPC. Bail application filed by them. were rejected by the
761
H
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 11 S.C.R.
A Sessions Judge. The High Court, however, granted bail
~
B
on the premise that there was no specific evidence
regarding inducing or taking of a specific person for
prosecution. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
was enacted for the prevention of immoral traffic. It is
unfortunate that the Investigating Officers and the Courts
ordinarily fail to bear in mind a distinction between the
C rescued children including girls, on the one hand, and the
persons who have been organizing such immoral traffic
in a systematic manner and have otherwise been aiding
;
and abetting the commission of offences thereunder. The
Legislature as also the Executive have also failed to draw
D a well-thought out plan for rehabilitation of the rescued
children in the society by bringing in suitable legislations
or schemes. The victims of immoral trafficking, most of
whom are minor or young girls, are let off on bail. They
again in most of the cases are forced to go back to the
E brothels from where they have been recovered and are
subjected to prostitution again at the instance of the
same persons. Bails are also granted to other accused
who are arrested from the brothels without bearing any
distinction in mind as to whether they work from behind
F or may be held to be guilty of offences of higher
magnitude. [Para 9] [766-A-E]
1.2. The question as regards grant of bail should be
considered having r~gard to the gravity of the offence
wherewith the accused had been charged. The High
G Court was not correct in dealing with the matter in such
a cursory manner. The High Court was also wrong in
recording that the statements of the girls was not
recorded under Section 164 CrPC, as the same was not
necessary. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts
H
GURIA, SWAYAM SEVI SANSTHAN v. STATE OF U.P. 763
AND ORS.
and circumstances of the case, that as the accused
A
persons have been granted bail long time back and in
some cases trials have also been concluded, it would not
be proper to cancel the bail at this stage. [Paras 11 and
13) [767 -A-E]
B
Puran v. Rambi/as and Another (2001) 6 SCC 338,
referred to.
Case Law Reference:
(2001) G sec 338
referred to
Para 12
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1373 of 2009.
c
From the Judgment & Order dated 4.4.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail
D
Application No. 4649, 2752, 1901, 3340, 3886, 2683, 4946 of
2006.
Aparna Bhat, P.Ramesh Kumar, Gopal Krishna, Madhulika
Mohta for the Appellant.
S.R. Singh, Sunita Gautam, Shrish Kr. Mishra, Pramod
Swarup, Pooja, Pareena Swarup, B.D. Jha for the
Respondents.
ThExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.