The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that a search under the Immoral Prevention Trafficking Act, 1956 would not be illegal if people from the locality were requested to join the proceedings, but none came forward and thus there is compliance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Act.
Brief Facts:
The second bail application was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for seeking bail pending trial in FIR registered under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of the Immoral Prevention Trafficking Act, 1956 and Sections 370 and 120-B IPC, at Chandigarh. According to the FIR secret information was received by Deputy Superintendent of Police, S.D.P.O (South-West), Sector 36, Chandigarh that a spa is running in the City in violation of the immoral trafficking act. Thereafter, the Women Helpline Team was called on the spot and a raid was conducted by the police in the Spa Centre run by the petitioner consisting of a total of 08 rooms. On checking, a 'busy' board was found hanging outside two rooms and upon opening, a man was found in an objectionable position, the same was in another room.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as the petitioner was neither present at the time of alleged occurrence; nor any incriminating material is recovered from him. Further, it was contended that the search was conducted in contravention of the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act, as no inhabitant of the locality was joined during the search operation.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioner was well aware of all the activities going on in the centre and he is thus accountable for the same, being its owner. Further, it was submitted that despite being in custody, the petitioner is influencing the prosecution witnesses as he has procured the affidavits from victims under undue pressure, thus in case released on bail, he shall hamper the trial.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that Section 15 of the Immoral Prevention Trafficking Act, before making a search without a warrant, the special police officer shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants (at least one of whom shall be a woman) of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated, to attend and witness the search, and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. Further, it was stated that as per the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, the search was illegal, as no one from the locality was associated, which is not acceptable the reason that people from the locality were requested to join the proceedings, but none came forward and also discernible that Women Helpline team was associated at the time of the search; thus, there is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act.
Further, it was stated that it is not in dispute that charges have already been framed on 17.02.2024 and trial is pending for recording prosecution evidence and thus the point of Section 15(2) of the Act would be a matter of trial, after leading evidence by both sides. Further, the court stated that there is no allegation that the petitioner has been falsely implicated at the behest of someone or by the police.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: X vs. U.T. Chandigarh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Case No.: CRM-M-26365-2024 (O&M)
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Viren Sibal
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Amit Jhanji, Ms. Eliza Gupta and Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
