InBail Appln. 707/2023 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court grants bail to man accused of human trafficking, rape & sexual assault; Says bail can be granted based on prima facie case even if detailed examination of evidence is not possible at bail application stage
Justice Vikas Mahajan [09-10-2023]

Read Order:Parvez Ahmed Sheikh V. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, October 12, 2023: In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man, who was arrested and charged with human trafficking, rape, and sexual assault, after being nearly 5 years in custody.

The present petition by Parvez Ahmed Sheikh (petitioner), was filed for seeking regular bail in an FIR registered under Section 366A/363/372/373/376/377/368/174-A/109/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3/4/6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and Section 23/26 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

The case against the petitioner revolved around information received by the police regarding the forcible confinement and prostitution of minor girls in the GB Road area. A raiding team was formed, resulting in the rescue of 10 girls. One of the rescued girls, CC (victim/PW-8), stated during her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that after her parents passed away, she went to Pune in search of a job, where she stayed for about two years. During her time in Pune, she met an unknown boy who persuaded her to come to Delhi with the promise of a job but instead sold her to a woman named Rani. Subsequently, CC was coerced into sexual relations under threats. She accused the petitioner, who resided in the brothel, of assisting Rani and Reshma in compelling her to engage in sexual acts against her will. CC also alleged that the petitioner physically abused her and prevented her from leaving the brothel. When the police attempted to search for the petitioner, he was found to be absconding and was declared a proclaimed offender. He was later apprehended by the crime branch and subsequently arrested.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that the prosecution's case relied heavily on the statement of PW-8, a witness who purportedly supported the prosecution's case. The bench noted that while the probative value of PW-8's testimony would be determined by the Trial Court during the trial, at this stage, even accepting PW-8's statement at face value, it was crucial to recognize that PW-8 admitted not knowing the name of the present petitioner. Additionally, PW-8's statement lacked corroboration from other witnesses, as both PW-5 and PW-6 failed to identify the present petitioner. The bench further pointed out that, prima facie, the statement of PW-8 also suffered from self-contradiction.

The bench noted that while the detailed and comprehensive examination of evidence should not be conducted during the bail application stage, it can be examined to some extent for the specific purpose of determining whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the accused that justifies granting bail and providing reasons for it.

The bench further observed that, although the prosecution claimed the petitioner to be the main accused and the owner of the brothel, no documentary evidence such as a sale deed, lease deed, or any other document had been presented as evidence to support this contention.

The bench also stated that the delay in the commencement and conclusion of the trial should be considered, and if the trial is not expected to conclude within a reasonable time, the accused cannot be kept in custody indefinitely.

The court emphasized that it could not overlook the fact that the petitioner had been in custody for nearly 4 years and 10 months. Furthermore, the prosecution had listed a total of 39 witnesses, of which 13 were yet to be examined. This situation would inevitably result in a protracted trial. Therefore, keeping the petitioner in detention would not serve any useful purpose.

Therefore, the court believed that the petitioner should be granted regular bail pending trial.