Sumitra Chhatri And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 1496 of 2017

1. Sumitra Chhatri d/o. Veer Bahadur Chhatri, aged about 25 years, r/o. Bihala Chourasta, Pyala Lagan, Kolkata (PB).

2. Priya Panda, w/o. Prashant Panda (wrongly mentioned as the daughter of Prashant Panda in the rejection order) aged about 22 years, r/o. Gopalpuri (Balai Sahi Paran Kiya Sakhi ) (Odisha) ---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, PS New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (CG).

---- Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicants :

Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Mr. Wasim Miyan, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 21-03-2017 1.

This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested on 14-1-2017 in connection with Crime No. 9 of 2017, registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act.

2.

As per prosecution case, on information received that prostitution was being carried out by few of the persons, pointer was appointed as fake customer and demand of Rs.5,000/- was made from the fake customer by the applicants and thereafter five hundred rupees note with signature was given to the applicants by the fake customer and according to trap party, the same note was given to the applicants as advance and thereafter the applicants were intercepted and arrested.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the applicants have been faslesly implicated in this case, there is no evidnce that the applicants were involved in prostitution. He would further submit that the applicants are ladies, charge-sheet has been filed, they are in jail since 14-1-2017 and no further investigation is necessary,, therefore, they may be released on bail. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail application.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and documents. It appears that the applicants are ladies. 6.

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations leveled against the applicants and further considering the fact that charge-sheet has been filed, the applicants are in jail since 14-1-2017 and no further investigation is necessary, I am inclined to release the applicants on bail. 7.

Accordingly, the application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., is allowed and it is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnshing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They shall appear before the trial Court as and when directed.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju