HC grants bail to woman accused of trafficking Bangladeshi minor

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Thursday granted bail to a 30-year-old woman who was in custody since December 1, 2018, on serious charges of human trafficking and forced prostitution, citing the extensive delay in the trial.
The case centres around allegations that she had lured a Bangladeshi national under the pretence of employment, only to confine and exploit her. In his observations, Justice Sarang Kotwal noted that not a single witness had been examined over the nearly six years since her arrest, which warranted reconsideration of her continued detention. As a result, the court ruled in favour of her bail, recognising the need to balance the allegations’ severity with the accused’s rights amid prolonged judicial delays.
The case originates from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the victim on November 30, 2018, at the Faraskhana Police Station, Pune. The FIR outlines grave allegations against a woman, Sanjana Biren Panikar, under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Prevention of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Specifically, the charges include IPC sections 369 (kidnapping), 344 (wrongful confinement), 366(B) (procuration of a minor), 370(A)(ii) (trafficking), 372 (selling minor for purposes of prostitution), and 373 (buying minor for purposes of prostitution), alongside sections 3 (prostitution in any place), 4 (punishment for keeping a brothel), 5 (punishment for engaging in the business of prostitution), and 6 (prostitution of a minor) of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, as well as sections 4 (punishment for penetrative sexual assault), 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault), and 17 (punishment for abetment) of the POCSO Act.
According to the prosecution, the victim was enticed by Panikar, with promises of legitimate employment in India. The prosecution claims that about five months before the FIR, the victim was persuaded to cross the border and enter India. Following her arrival, she was allegedly held captive for several days before being forced into prostitution. The prosecution alleges that on November 26, 2018, the victim was delivered to another individual, who informed her that she had been sold for ₹30,000. In a state of distress, the victim sought help from passersby, leading to her eventual rescue and the subsequent lodging of the FIR.
Advocate Ashokkumar Dubey, representing Panikar, argued vigorously for her release, emphasizing the egregious delay in the trial proceedings. He noted that, despite nearly six years having elapsed since her arrest, not a single witness has been examined, effectively stalling the case. Dubey asserted that the prolonged detention of Panikar as an undertrial prisoner infringes upon her constitutional right to a speedy trial. He further highlighted that the victim’s current residence in Bangladesh complicates her ability to provide testimony, which is crucial for the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Shrikant Yadav, opposed the bail application, citing the serious nature of the charges and the potential risk of absconding. Yadav contended that the gravity of the allegations necessitated a more cautious approach regarding bail.
Justice Sarang Kotwal recognized the severe nature of the offences but out that the lengthy duration of Panikar’s custody and the absence of any witness examinations warranted a reassessment of her bail status. Furthermore, he observed that the trial is unlikely to conclude in the foreseeable future, undermining the justification for her continued detention.
Considering these, the court ultimately decided to grant bail to Panikar, stipulating that her passport must remain deposited with the investigating agency as a condition of her release. This ruling not only underscores the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty but also reflects a judicial recognition of the rights of the accused amid the complexities of an overly delayed trial process.