Team Herald
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has directed the Sessions Court to expedite the trial against an Indore-based man, accused of running prostitution racket by trafficking gullible girls to Goa.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The Bench of Justice M S Jawalkar has further upheld the trial court’s order rejecting his bail application stating his involvement in the crime is clear.
During the argument, the Public Prosecutor said Anand Gautam alias Basu is a habitual offender and involved in similar offences in the State. During the investigation, the Crime Branch team – that cracked down on the prostitution racket – discovered the modus operandi of the accused while also unearthing his account and SIM card details.
Basu is also allegedly involved in three more similar offences registered at Calangute Police Station, Margao Town Police Station, and Crime Branch Police Station. The record also reveals he was absconding and is currently lodged in Colvale Central Jail in the 2020 sex trade offence. On the other hand, the accused person’s counsel denied his role in the case.
The Bench observed that “it appears that complicity of the present applicant is very much there. He has received money through Google Pay from the victim girls as there is prima facie evidence to that effect and such payment is confirmed by the statements of victim girls”.
Justice Jawalkar further observed statements of three victim girls placed on record and that he was arrested from Indore on the information given by one victim.
“From the evidence on record, prima facie, it reveals that he is living on the earnings of victim girls by engaging immoral trafficking. It is also revealed that he is having three different names Basu alias Anand Gautam alias Vasu. On his release, possibility that the applicant (accused) will flee from the trial and likelihood to engage himself under similar offences cannot be ruled out. I prefer rejection of bail as there is every likelihood of the applicant not attending the trial, so also, engage himself under similar offences,” the order states.
The application was rejected while the Bench directed the trial Court to conclude the trial as early as possible.
