Ranjeeta Kaur W/O Bablusingh Matharu v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Pso Kapil Nagar, Dist. Nagpur

1 / 3 6-aba 662-25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION(ABA) NO. 662 OF 2025 Ranjeeta Kaur Bablusing Matharu Vs. State of Maharashtra ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Kamal K.Gour, counsel for the applicant.

Mr.Ujjwal Phasate, APP for the State.

CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 20/09/2025 1.

The applicant is apprehending her arrest in Crime No.501 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Section 143(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita r/w Sections 3,4,5, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 registered with Police Station Kapil Nagar, Nagpur City. 2.

It is alleged that on the information received about the immoral trafficking done by the applicant, the raid was conducted and the girl was found. The amount was recovered. The applicant was present at the time of raid. She was informed that as it was the night hours, she cannot be taken in the custody and asked her to attend the police station in the morning. The learned counsel appearing for

2 / 3 6-aba 662-25 the applicant stated that the applicant is falsely implicated in this case. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Section 143(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 will not be attracted, as the girl was doing it willingly. Hence, prayed to protect the applicant by granting adinterim anticipatory bail. 3.

The learned APP has opposed the application stating that the statement of the victim shows that the applicant was doing said business and she was running the brothel and living on the earnings of victim. Though the applicant was informed to attend the police station, she remained absent and has filed this application. The applicant was present on the spot of the incident. Hence, the custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, prayed to reject the application.

4.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned APP and the learned counsel assisting the learned APP.

5.

The allegations made against this applicant are about running the brothel. The raid was conducted and the applicant was found on the spot. Considering the role played by this applicant and considering the statement of the victim, though she is doing it willingly, it is found that the applicant

3 / 3 6-aba 662-25 was running the brothel. The custodial interrogation of this applicant is necessary. Hence, the application is rejected and disposed of.

JUDGE