Bombay High Court
BABITA MOHAMMED SHABIR SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
At the prima facie stage, the court held that bail should be granted to both applicants.
Summary
The High Court considered two bail applications filed by Champa alias Vishnumaya Dinesh Lama and Babita Mohammed Shabir Shaikh, accused of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (PITA) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act in connection with the alleged trafficking and exploitation of a 17‑year‑old Bangladeshi minor. The prosecution alleged that the applicants purchased the victim, forced her into prostitution, threatened her and destroyed her mobile SIM, while the defence argued that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the applicants to the trafficking offence. The court examined the victim’s statements, the medical examination report and the fact that the victim had stayed with the applicants for five months, finding that the material was only prima facie. Weighing the applicants’ age, health, family circumstances and the possibility of imposing stringent bail conditions, the court concluded that bail could be granted. Accordingly, both bail applications were allowed subject to a set of conditions, and the order was limited to bail without prejudice to the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution has established sufficient prima facie evidence of human trafficking and related offences to justify denial of bail.
- Whether the alleged conduct of the applicants falls within the ambit of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
- Whether the risk of the applicants tampering with evidence or committing further offences warrants refusal of bail.
- Whether bail can be granted with conditions that adequately safeguard the interests of the victim and the trial.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 127(4), 137(2), 144, 3(5), 351(2), 49, 64, 96, 98, 99
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 — s. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 17, 4
Subjects
- bail
- human trafficking
- prostitution
- minor victim
- PITA
- PCNS
- POCSO
- bail conditions
- prima facie evidence
Judgment
BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 73 OF 2026
Champa @ Vishnumaya Dinesh Lama .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 82 OF 2026
Babita Mohammed Shabir Shaikh .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Rajesh More, Advocate for Applicants in both Bail Applications.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Dhananjay K. Bhosale, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in Bail
Application No.73 of 2026.
Ms. Gayatri Pore, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in Bail Application
No.82 of 2026.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. More, learned Advocate for Applicants and Mr.
Bhosale, Ms. Talhar, learned APP for the State and Ms. Pore, learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. This is a group of two (2) Bail Applications. Bail Application
No.73 of 2026 is filed by Champa alias Vishnumaya Dinesh Lama
whereas, Bail Application No.82 of 2026 is filed by Babita Mohammed
Shabir Shaikh. Mr. More appears for both Applicants. Mr. Bhosale
appears for Respondent No.2 / Prosecutrix / Victim / First Informant
in Bail Application No.73 of 2026 and Ms. Pore appears for
1 of 8
BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc
Respondent No.2 / Prosecutrix / Victim / First Informant in Bail
Application No.82 of 2026 as appointed Advocates.
3. Champa is arraigned as Accused No.1 and Babita is
arraigned as Accused No.2 in the present crime. There are 3 other
accused persons. Victim / First Informant filed FIR dated 11.04.2025
bearing CR No.68 of 2025 in Faraskhana Police Station, Pune against 6
accused persons one of whom is unknown for offences punishable
under Sections 144, 96, 98, 99, 127(4), 115(2), 351(2), 137(2), 64,
49 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3, 4, 5, 6
and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short “PITA”) and
Section 4 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012. Accused No.2 is arrested on 03.06.2025 and Accused No. 3 is
arrested on 12.04.2025.
4. Statement of victim is recorded, she is a minor – 17 years old
and a resident of Bangladesh. She has narrated and recorded identical
statement. She states that her friend Sumaya asked her whether she
intended to come to India and she entered India illegally and one
unknown mediator gave them train tickets to come to Pune. She stated
that she lived with Sumaya in Pune for one week after which Sumaya
took her to one building in Tulshibaug area, Pune in December 2024
and handed her over to some women including both Applicants.
4.1. According to prosecution case, the women told her that they
have purchased her for 3 lakhs from Sumaya. It is prosecution case
2 of 8
BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc
that four (4) woman forced her into prostitution and threatened her.
According to prosecutrix on 02.04.2025 she escaped and on
07.04.2025 she went to the Police Station and informed police that she
was from Bangladesh. On 08.04.2025 she was admitted to Sassoon
General Hospital. On 09.04.2025 her statement was recorded and on
11.04.2025 FIR was registered.
5. Mr. More, learned Advocate for Applicants in both
Applications would submit that there is no direct or even
circumstantial evidence supporting prosecution case that Applicants
were engaged in the offence of human trafficking for exploitation. He
would submit that PITA is applicable only when a person is found to be
involved in human trafficking for prostitution or sexual exploitation
but there is no prima facie material or evidence to prove direct or
indirect culpability of both Applicants in the present crime.
6. He would submit that the only role attributed to Accused
No.2 is of she having removed the SIM card from the mobile phone of
the victim forcibly and destroying it so that she could not contact any
person. He would contend that this particular act does not establish
the ingredients of trafficking or exploitation. He would forcefully
submit that both Applicants are residents of Tulshibaug area for the
past many years and they are arrested merely on the basis of
confessional statement of victim on suspicious grounds without any
incriminating material found against them.
3 of 8
BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc
7. He would submit that allegations in the statement of the
First Informant is that the Applicants run a brothel and forced her into
submission. He would submit that even as per prosecution case and
statement of victim there is no explanation offered for the victim to
have remained put in the house with the Applicants for more than 5
months from December 2024 and after she leaving / escaping
therefrom in April 2025 to have remained absconded for a further 4
days after her alleged escape from custody of Applicants and thereafter
approaching the Police Station. He would therefore submit that in such
a situation when there is such prima facie ambiguity, Applicants
deserve to be enlarged on bail.
8. The prosecution team is led by the Assistant Public
Prosecutors and Mr. Bhosle and Ms. Pore as appointed Advocates for
Respondent No.2 - Prosecutrix. Since, their submissions are in common
they are delineated herein together for brevity purpose and to avoid
repetition. The learned appointed Advocates and prosecutors admit to
the fact that date of occurrence of offence is from November 2024 to
April 2025. Prosecution case is that Applicants forced the victim to
establish relations with unknown persons against her will and with
common intention abetted the offence of prostitution. Their other
charges are about buying the victim from other accused persons
(trafficking), threatening the victim, wrongfully restraining the victim
and destroying the SIM card from her mobile phone.
4 of 8
BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc
9. They would also argue that Applicants assaulted the victim
and have heavily relied upon the Medical Examination Report. Witness
statements recorded prima facie border upon the aforesaid charges. It
is argued that the flat in the building where she was residing along
with Applicants was a brothel.
10. Ms. Pore and Mr. Bhosale in tandem would submit that this
is a case of human trafficking involving violence and assault, that
victim is minor i.e. she is 16-17 years old at the time of incident. They
would submit that even though Applicants may be women and charged
with offences under PITA, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail,
since there is every likelihood that they will re-offend themselves.
Hence they would both vehemently urge the Court to dismiss the
present Applications for bail.
11. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
at the bar and perused the record of the case. Submissions made by the
learned Advocate have received due consideration of the Court.
12. At the outset it is seen that both Applicants are women and
are in jail for almost 18 months, one Applicant is 63 years old and is
infirm as argued by Mr. More. Second Applicant is 41 years old and
she has one minor son to provide care and support. Case of
prosecution is that for five months the victim infact stayed with the
Applicants which is prima facie evident from her own statement in the
FIR itself. The Medical Examination Report infact supports this
5 of 8
BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc
contention. Victim herself has stated that she arrived in Pune within a
week from Bangladesh and thereafter stayed with the Applicants in the
subject flat from December 2024 to April 2025.
13. Hence, considering the nature of the allegations made
against Applicants and the fact that chargesheet has been filed and
investigation is completed and most importantly that the victim stayed
along with the Applicants for 5 months together without demur or any
complaint whatsoever during that period, at this prima facie stage, I
am of the opinion that Applicants should be released on bail.
14. Further in order to allay the fear of the victim and
submissions made by the prosecution / appointed Advocates about
Applicants re-offending themselves, stringent conditions can be
undoubtedly imposed. Needless to state that complicity of Applicants
in the crime shall be proved at trial. Even though the learned APPs and
both the learned appointed Advocates are vehemently opposing grant
of bail, I am inclined to grant bail on the basis of the aforesaid prima
facie facts and circumstances in present case.
15. In view of the above prima facie observations and facts
delineated herein above, both Applicants before me are granted bail.
Both Bail Applications are allowed on the following terms and
conditions:-
(i) Both Applicants are directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with
6 of 8
BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc
one or two sureties in the like amount;
(ii) Both Applicants shall not enter into the territorial
jurisdiction of Faraskhana Police Station till the conclusion of
trial except attending Court hearing;
(iii) Both Applicants shall provide their alternate
addresses and name of the nearby Police Station where they
shall be residing and mark their attendance on the 1st day of
every month between 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m., till the
conclusion of the trial;
(iv) Both Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise the victim and /or witnesses
and / or to any person acquainted with the facts of the case,
as also shall not tamper with the evidence;
(v) Liberty is granted to the State to apply for cancellation
of bail if the Applicants commit similar offence in future;
(vi) Both Applicants shall attend the trial before the Trial
Court regularly on every date unless exempted by the Trial
Court for any reason;
(vii) Any infraction of the above conditions shall entail the
prosecution to seek cancellation of this order.
16. It is clarified that the above observations in this order are
7 of 8
BA.73.2026 with BA.82.2026.doc
limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any
observations on the merits of the case and the trial shall be adjudicated
on the basis of the evidence uninfluenced by the present order and
strictly in accordance with law. It is also clarified that this common
order is for the sake of convenience and Applicants shall not be
adversely impacted by the conduct of the other Applicant including but
not limited to infringement of bail conditions.
17. Both Bail Applications are allowed and disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date:
2026.09.17
11:25:46 +0530
8 of 8
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.