Bombay High Court
SHAFIULA @ SOFIULA @ ALAM AABUNS AR VAHIDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant subject to the conditions specified in the order.
Summary
The applicant, Shafiula @ Sofiula @ Alam Aabuns ar Vahid, was arrested under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956 for allegedly trafficking a woman and her minor daughter from Assam to Pune for prostitution. The victim’s statements indicated that she left her matrimonial home voluntarily in a consensual relationship with the applicant, and no injuries or coercion were documented, leading the court to find no prima facie evidence of kidnapping or trafficking. The prosecution argued that the applicant enticed the victim with false promises of marriage and profited from her exploitation, while the defence contended that the charges were unsupported and that other accused had already been bailed. After evaluating the victim’s statements, the supplementary statement, and the lack of material evidence such as cash or receipts, the court held that the applicant’s continued detention was unwarranted. Consequently, the court granted bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, imposing stringent conditions and emphasizing that the trial would determine guilt on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant’s arrest under the BNS and ITPA is justified on a prima facie basis.
- Whether there exists a prima facie case of kidnapping, human trafficking, and prostitution against the applicant.
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 considering the nature of the allegations and the applicant’s alleged role.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 127(4), 137(2), 142, 143, 32, 34, 3(5), 351(2), 62, 64, 97, 98, 99
- Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956 — s. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Subjects
- bail
- human trafficking
- prostitution
- kidnapping
- prima facie
- Section 483 BNSS
- Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
BA.456.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 456 OF 2026
Shafiula @ Sofiula @ Alam Aabuns ar Vahid .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Rajabhau Chaudhari a/w. Sharaddha Kadam, Advocates for
Applicant.
Ms. Anuja S. Gota, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
......…........…
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Chaudhari, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms.
Gotad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
2. This is an Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking
enlargement bail in connection with C.R.No.79 of 2025 registered with
Faraskhana Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 62,
64, 97, 98, 142, 143, 99, 34, 32, 3(5), 351(2), 115(2), 127(4) and
137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and
Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956.
First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’ is filed on 24.04.2025 and
Applicant was arrested on 25.04.2025.
1 of 8
BA.456.2026.doc
3. Briefly stated, it is prosecution’s case that Respondent No.2 –
Victim is married with one minor daughter and they were residing in
Assam. Her husband was running a vegetable shop in their locality in
Assam and was addicted to alcohol because of which he abused his
wife, harassed her and frequently assaulted her and since her family
was poor she tolerated the abuse silently. In December 2024,
Respondent No.2 – Victim met Applicant and they gradually developed
a close relationship and he allegedly promised her marriage,
employment and peaceful life in Pune. Thereafter, Respondent No.2
along with Applicant and her minor daughter left for Pune and upon
arrival in Pune, she was taken to Budhwar Peth where she allegedly
discovered that Applicant had deceived her and sold her into
trafficking and prostitution. On 24.04.2025, Applicant approached
Faraskhana Police Station and registered present FIR against Applicant
and several other persons for offences punishable under BNS, 2023
and ITPA, 1956. Applicant filed Bail Application No.4089 of 2025
before Sessions Court, Pune which came to be rejected by order dated
04.11.2025. Hence present Application.
4. Mr. Chaudhri, learned Advocate for Applicant would submit
that Applicant is falsely indicted in the present crime. He would submit
that Respondent No.2 and Applicant were in a love relationship
therefore she along with her minor daughter voluntarily on her own
free will left her matrimonial home and accompanied Applicant from
2 of 8
BA.456.2026.doc
Assam to Pune hence the charge of kidnapping is not made out. He
would submit that there is no specific charge of prostitution levied
against Applicant and neither is there any direct role attributed to him
as statement of Respondent No.2 shows that collection of money and
introduction of customers was handled by other accused persons hence
Applicant had no role to play in the prostitution racket. He would
submit that there was no recovery of money, tokens, receipts or any
incriminating material from Applicant. He would submit that
chargesheet has been filed and further detention of Applicant serves no
rational purpose. He would submit that other accused persons have
been granted bail by Additional Sessions Court, Pune hence Applicant
ought to be released on bail on grounds of parity.
5. Ms. Gotad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State would
submit that Applicant enticed Respondent No.2 to travel to Pune on
false promise to marry her but instead sold her into prostitution for a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. She would submit that Applicant was
instrumental to bringing Respondent No.2 to Pune and selling her into
prostitution therefore leaving her alone to fend for herself she being in
a vulnerable state. She would submit that Applicant is also likely to
influence Respondent No.2 and the prosecution witnesses. She would
submit that that Applicant and other accused persons forced the victim
to establish relations with unknown persons against her will and
abetted the offence of prostitution. She would submit that Applicant is
3 of 8
BA.456.2026.doc
likely to re- offend himself and hence urged this Court to reject grant
of bail to Applicant in light of her submissions.
6. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties
and with their able assistance, perused the record of the case.
Submissions made by learned Advocates at the bar have received due
consideration of the Court.
7. Respondent No.2 – Victim’s statement dated 24.04.2025 is
recorded and appended to the Application. It is seen that Applicant
and Respondent No.2 were in a consensual love relationship when she
decided to flee from Assam to Pune with Applicant and her minor
daughter and prima facie there is nothing in her statement to show
that falsity or deceit was practiced upon her neither is there any
allegation of force or coercion upon Respondent No.2 – Victim to leave
her matrimonial home in Assam and travel to Pune. This is prima facie
evident from the statement of the victim itself. Medico - Legal
Examination Report is appended at page No.31 of the Application and
perusal of the same would show that Respondent No.2 – Victim has
suffered no injuries. These findings prima facie do not inspire
confidence of the Court in the story of Respondent No.2 – Victim that
she was forced into prostitution.
8. It is seen that Respondent No.2 recorded Supplementary
Statement on 13.05.2025 which is appended to the Application at page
4 of 8
BA.456.2026.doc
No.86A wherein she states that certain social activists took advantage
of Respondent No.2’s lack of knowledge of Marathi language and
urged her to file complaint of harassment at the hands of Applicant
and certain other accused persons however she has no complaint of
harassment against those accused persons nor Applicant and that she
was forced to sign her Preliminary Statement dated 24.04.2025. This
Supplementary Statement prima facie shows that the case against
Applicant is slight and he was arrested merely on the basis of
confessional statement of victim on suspicious grounds without any
incriminating material found against him.
9. It is trite law that ITPA, 1956 is applicable only when a
person is found to be involved in human trafficking for prostitution or
sexual exploitation however perusal of the material on record shows
that there is no prima facie material or evidence to prove direct or
indirect culpability of Applicant in the present crime. There is no
recovery of cash made by the police authorities from Applicant neither
is there any recovery of receipt or bank statements to show receipt of
Rs.5 lakhs therefore charges under ITPA, 1956 are prima facie
unsustainable.
10. Hence, considering the nature of the allegations made
against Applicant and the fact that chargesheet has been filed and
investigation is completed and most importantly that the victim stayed
5 of 8
BA.456.2026.doc
along with the Applicant for 4 months together without demur or any
complaint whatsoever during that period, at this prima facie stage, I
am of the opinion that Applicant should be released on bail.
11. Further in order to allay the fear of the victim and
submissions made by the prosecution about Applicant re-offending
himself, stringent conditions can be undoubtedly imposed. Needless to
state that complicity of Applicant in the crime shall be proved at trial.
Even though the learned APP vehemently opposed grant of bail, I am
inclined to grant bail on the basis of the aforesaid prima facie facts and
circumstances in present case.
12. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and
findings, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the
following terms and conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with CR. No.79 of 2025;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five
Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at the
concerned Police Station, once every month, on the first
Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
6 of 8
BA.456.2026.doc
p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter shall
attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court;
(iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial
and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates,
unless specifically exempted. Applicant shall not seek
unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall
entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail;
(v) Applicant shall not leave India without prior permission
of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current residential address and mobile telephone
number and shall forthwith inform the Investigating
Officer of any change in his residential address or
mobile telephone number, as and when such change
occurs; and
(viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid
conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to
the Applicant.
7 of 8
BA.456.2026.doc
13. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
14. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.10.08
11:10:42 +0530
8 of 8
Checking your session…