Omkar Gokhale.In two judgments passed recently, the Bombay High Court refused to allow the release of two victims of immoral trafficking from protection homes, in view of the possibility that they were likely to be subject to similar activities in the future..The Court passed the rulings while denying custody of the victims to the relatives of the two women. The two rescued women are in their twenties and originally hail from Nepal and Bangladesh. They were brought to a protection home in Sangli after police conducted a raid on a prostitution racket..Two separate petitions had been filed by women claiming to be sisters of the rescued women..Justice SS Shinde denied the release on the ground that the victims did not have a permanent residence or proof of their latest address. It was also noted that the petitioners were not able to prove their relation to the victims. The judgments state,.“…in my view, if the custody of the Victim XYZ is handed over to the Applicant/Petitioner, her possibility of indulging in similar activities in future cannot be ruled out.”.The High Court was moved after the lower courts refused their plea for custody. During the investigation, one of the victims had disclosed to the police that she hails from Bangladesh and was forced into prostitution. The other victim was found to be a citizen of Nepal with no permanent residence..Appearing for the victims, advocates Rati Sinhasane and Umesh Mankapure argued that they had attained the age of majority. It was submitted that they should be allowed release from the correctional home for their betterment..Advocate Sinhasane also informed the Court that one of the victims, hailing from Bangladesh, is a single parent of a 7-year-old child who was suffering from her mother’s absence..Further, it was pointed out that the lower courts had failed to consider that if the victim hailing from Nepal is not released, she would lose her job at a private company at Pune..The High Court, however, opined that the lower court had conducted a proper inquiry into the victims’ family background before sending them to the correctional centre. Upon such inquiry, the lower court had concluded that if the victims’ custody is handed over to their sisters, there is a possibility of their being subject to similar activities in the future..Therefore, Justice Shinde concurred with the lower court verdicts, recording in both judgments that,.“The learned magistrate has rightly observed that if the victim resides in an institution, where she can generate means of income and earn for her livelihood and hence in the interest and welfare of the victim, the rehabilitation of the victim is necessary.”.It may be noted that the judgments were passed days after Justice Shinde ruled in favour of the autonomy of adult victims rescued from immoral trafficking, observing that such persons cannot be forced to live in a correction home against their wishes..[Read the Judgments passed on July 16, 2019 below]
Omkar Gokhale.In two judgments passed recently, the Bombay High Court refused to allow the release of two victims of immoral trafficking from protection homes, in view of the possibility that they were likely to be subject to similar activities in the future..The Court passed the rulings while denying custody of the victims to the relatives of the two women. The two rescued women are in their twenties and originally hail from Nepal and Bangladesh. They were brought to a protection home in Sangli after police conducted a raid on a prostitution racket..Two separate petitions had been filed by women claiming to be sisters of the rescued women..Justice SS Shinde denied the release on the ground that the victims did not have a permanent residence or proof of their latest address. It was also noted that the petitioners were not able to prove their relation to the victims. The judgments state,.“…in my view, if the custody of the Victim XYZ is handed over to the Applicant/Petitioner, her possibility of indulging in similar activities in future cannot be ruled out.”.The High Court was moved after the lower courts refused their plea for custody. During the investigation, one of the victims had disclosed to the police that she hails from Bangladesh and was forced into prostitution. The other victim was found to be a citizen of Nepal with no permanent residence..Appearing for the victims, advocates Rati Sinhasane and Umesh Mankapure argued that they had attained the age of majority. It was submitted that they should be allowed release from the correctional home for their betterment..Advocate Sinhasane also informed the Court that one of the victims, hailing from Bangladesh, is a single parent of a 7-year-old child who was suffering from her mother’s absence..Further, it was pointed out that the lower courts had failed to consider that if the victim hailing from Nepal is not released, she would lose her job at a private company at Pune..The High Court, however, opined that the lower court had conducted a proper inquiry into the victims’ family background before sending them to the correctional centre. Upon such inquiry, the lower court had concluded that if the victims’ custody is handed over to their sisters, there is a possibility of their being subject to similar activities in the future..Therefore, Justice Shinde concurred with the lower court verdicts, recording in both judgments that,.“The learned magistrate has rightly observed that if the victim resides in an institution, where she can generate means of income and earn for her livelihood and hence in the interest and welfare of the victim, the rehabilitation of the victim is necessary.”.It may be noted that the judgments were passed days after Justice Shinde ruled in favour of the autonomy of adult victims rescued from immoral trafficking, observing that such persons cannot be forced to live in a correction home against their wishes..[Read the Judgments passed on July 16, 2019 below]
