The High Court allowed a Writ Petition filed by Victim No.3 challenging her detention in a protective home under Section 17(4) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956. The Petitioner, a major victim rescued from a raid, was ordered to be detained for one year by the Magistrate, which was upheld by the Sessions Court. The High Court held that the detention of an adult victim against her wish violated fundamental rights and procedural safeguards under PITA 1956. The Court emphasized the distinction between victims and perpetrators, and construed the term 'may' in Section 17(5) as 'shall', making the assistance of a panel of five respectable persons mandatory. The impugned orders were quashed, and Victim No.3 was directed to be released forthwith.
Criminal Law-- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA,1956)-- Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 17(4)-- Complaint lodged u/s 3, 4, 5 and 6 of PITA-- Accused were arrested-- Inquiry by Ld. Magistrate-- Three victims were rescued-- Ld. Magistrate directed to be kept three victims in Vatsalaya Mahila Vastigrah for a period of one year-- Aggrieved-- Revision preferred by three victim no. 1 to 3 before Ld. Session court-- Revision dismissed-- Aggrieved-- Victim no.3 preferred petition before high court-- Question as to major victim can be detained in protection home against her wish?-- Answer in Negative-- Object of PITA, 1956-- Cases referred-- Reliance placed on case of Kajal Mukesh singh-- Fundamental right of major to move from one place to another cannot be curtailed-- No justification to detain major victim petitioner on the ground that the chances of victim/petitioner again indulging in commercial sex and there was no body to take care of the petitioner/victim-- Both impugned orders set aside-- Petition allowed
Para-- 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition -- Quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 24 June 2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge and order dated 19 April 2025 passed by Magistrate -- Directed that Victim No.3 be set at liberty forthwith -- Rule made absolute
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 61
Case Number: Writ Petition No.4726 of 2025
Date of Decision: 2026-01-16
Case Title: Whether a major victim of immoral trafficking can be ordered to be detained in a protective home against her wish under Section 17 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956
Before Judge: N.J.Jamadar, J.
Advocate(s): Mr. Abhijeet V. Jangale, Ms. Nikita Bordepatil, Mrs. R.S.Tendulkar
Appellant: XYZ
Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Nature of Litigation: Criminal Writ Petition challenging detention order under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956
Remedy Sought: Petitioner seeks quashing of orders detaining her in protective home and direction for release
Filing Reason: Petitioner aggrieved by dismissal of Revision Application affirming Magistrate's detention order
Previous Decisions: Magistrate ordered detention under Section 17(4) of PITA 1956 -- Sessions Court dismissed Revision Application
Issues: Whether detention of major victim in protective home against her wish under Section 17 of PITA 1956 is legally sustainable Whether procedural safeguards under Section 17(5) of PITA 1956 were complied with
Submissions/Arguments: Petitioner's counsel argued that Courts failed to distinguish victim from perpetrator -- Petitioner is major with fundamental rights -- Detention based on speculative risk of relapse is untenable -- Breach of Section 17(5) as Magistrate did not seek assistance of panel State's counsel supported detention citing lack of relatives and risk of relapse into commercial sex work -- Emphasized victim's poor economic condition and safety concerns
Ratio Decidendi: Adult victims cannot be deprived of liberty under PITA 1956 based on speculative risk of relapse into commercial sex work -- Courts must distinguish between victims and perpetrators -- Procedural safeguards under Section 17(5) of PITA 1956 are mandatory, construing 'may' as 'shall' in legislative context -- Fundamental rights of major victims cannot be curtailed without due process
Judgment Excerpts: The Courts below have lost sight of the fact that the Petitioner is not an accused, but the victim The Petitioner is a major The Courts below have declined to release her on a tenuous premise that the victim may again relapse into commercial sex work In the context of the legislative object, the term 'may' is required to be construed as 'shall'
Procedural History: Police raid at Hotel Vijay Lodging, Yeola -- Rescue of Victim No.3 and registration of crime under PITA 1956 -- Magistrate inquiry under Section 17(2) and detention order under Section 17(4) -- Revision Application dismissed by Sessions Court -- Writ Petition filed in High Court
