NATIONAL LEGAL RESEARCH DESK
Equivalent citations: 2006 CriLJ 612
The petitioner, alongwith two other women, was found in a hotel and she was indulged in the act of prostitution therein. She therefore applied for direction for setting aside of the order of the lower court rejecting her plea for release from the correctional home alongwith compensation.
In this case there was only one order for keeping the Petitioner in a protective home for a period of one day, though she was continuously being kept in the protective home, wherein she could be kept for not more than three weeks that too for enquiry purposes. Therefore, the fact that the victim escaped from the home on 10th October 2004 became irrelevant, as per the Bombay High Court.
The High Court in this case lamented over the apathy over the treatment of the victim by the Courts of Magistrate and Sessions Judge. The Magistrate was duty bound to strictly follow the procedure as per Section 17 of the ITPA. The bail application of the victim was also denied despite of the fact that she could not have been detained beyond a particular date of 27th August 2004 i.e. three weeks. It lamented over the state of affairs and observed that “The approach of the Courts below ought to have been very cautious considering the fact that the Court was dealing with a victim and not accused.” Further, it stated that the Courts should have shown more sensitivity, instead of a mechanical approach.
The Court set the petitioner at liberty, while accepting the reports filed by the State Government.
The Court also observed that as per the reports of the State Government it would establish special courts under Section 22A of the ITPA for fast disposal of more than 1500 cases pending under the Act.
The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was till then, ordered to consider assigning the cases under the said Act to specified Courts till establishment of the Special Courts, facilitating passing of appropriate orders and holding of enquiry as contemplated by Section 17 of the said Act.