Key Highlights
- advertisementIn the raid, five women, who were survivors of flesh trade, were rescued.
- Two persons were arrested and a crime for offences punishable under various sections of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (PITA) came to be registered against those persons.
- The Magistrate, Yeola, conducted an inquiry under PITA and, after appraisal of the report submitted by the Probation Officer, the medical examination reports of the survivors and the statements of the survivors, directed that the petitioner be kept in Vatsalya Mahila Vastigrah, Ashok Stambh, Nashik, for a period of one year. Noting the facts that the petitioner had no relatives who could take care of her and that she had no source of income, the Magistrate reasoned that if the survivor was enlarged on personal bond, there was a strong possibility of her again indulging in immoral activities. Thus, the petitioner was directed to be kept in the protective home, i. e., Vatsalya Mahila Vastigrah, Nashik, for a period of one year. Being aggrieved by the order, the survivor preferred a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, who dismissed the plea, holding, inter alia, that the survivors were subjected to exploitation for commercial sex work and that, having regard to the situation in life of the survivors, the order passed by the Magistrate was sustainable. Advocates Abhijeet V Jangale and Nikita Bordepatil, appearing for the survivor, argued that the courts below had lost sight of the fact that the petitioner is not an accused but a survivor and that she is a major.
- It was pointed out that the lower courts declined to release the survivor on the tenuous premise that she may again relapse into commercial sex work, but her rights had been trampled upon as the courts below failed to appreciate the distinction between a survivor of exploitation and a perpetrator of offences under PITA. The State, on the other hand, stressed the facts that the survivor was allegedly residing alone since her parents had separated and that the economic condition of the survivor as extremely poor. advertisementThe bench held that “the courts below approached the issue from a wrong perspective and got swayed by the absence of a relative to whom the custody of the victim could be entrusted.""In the view of this Court, the necessity of detention of the victim in a protective home ought to have been determined on the touchstone of the constitutional rights of personal liberty and fundamental freedom.
- In the absence of material which would justify the restriction on personal liberty and fundamental freedom, in the nature of detention of the victim, the Magistrate could not have directed the detention of the victim for the reason that there was nobody to take care of her, who was a major, and thus there were chances of the victim again indulging in commercial sex work if she was released without providing her necessary counselling and training," the bench further said. The bench added, “The mere fact that the victim was alone, by itse.
