'Delay Not Sole Ground': Delhi HC Rejects Bail of GB Road Operator Accused of Forcing Prostitution

The Delhi High Court recently denied bail to a woman allegedly running a kotha on GB Road, who is accused of forcing a Nepali woman into prostitution, while observing that delay in trial alone cannot be a ground for bail.

A bench led by Justice Girish Kathpalia said, "No doubt, delay in trial is a ground for grant of bail. But that is not the only ground. The Court has to keep in mind overall circumstances in the light of judicially sanctified parameters for grant of bail. Besides, while seeking bail on the ground of delay in trial, it is incumbent upon the applicant to place on record the ordersheets of the trial court in order to rule out the possibility that the matter is being adjourned at request of the applicant himself. In the present case, no such ordersheet has been placed on record."

High Court was hearing a bail application filed by the accused woman in connection with offences under Sections 366A, 368, 342, 370, 370A, 373, 376, 109, 120B, and 34 of the IPC; Sections 3, 5, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act; Section 17 of the POCSO Act; and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The present case arises from a complaint filed by a Nepali woman who was lured to Delhi by Raj Kumar on the pretext of employment. She was allegedly sold to a woman named Sita, who in turn sold her to the accused, a brothel operator at GB Road.

According to the complaint, the accused woman forcibly confined the complainant to the kotha and compelled her into prostitution beat her up, and even injected drugs, after which she was forced to indulge in sexual relations with 20 men despite her objections.

During the proceedings, the public prosecutor appearing for the State contended that even the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed the applicant’s bail plea, making the present case unfit for bail. He also added that the court had granted liberty to seek bail afresh in case of unreasonable delay in trial.

Opposing the plea, the counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that a fresh application had been filed before the trial court, which was dismissed; therefore, the present application has been filed.

Arguing that delay in trial is a vital ground for grant of bail, the counsel said that only one of the prosecutrixes has been examined so far, while the accused has been in custody for the past seven years.

After weighing the contentions, the Court was of the view that the trial is at its fag end, also noting that only one victim is yet to testify and is scheduled to appear in August 2025 as she is pregnant.

"Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to grant bail to the accused/applicant. The application is dismissed," the court said

CASE TITLE: PHULMAI TAMANG @ NEHA versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI