Immoral Traffic Prevention Act | Major Victim Can’t Be Detained In Protective Home Against Her Will Solely Due To Lack Of Family : Bombay High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Bombay Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar ordered the immediate release of a woman rescued during a police raid, holding that the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is not intended to penalise victims of sexual exploitation. The Court set aside a Magistrate’s direction placing her in a protection home for one year, which had been based on findings that she had no steady income, no close family support and might otherwise return to “immoral” activities. The Magistrate had released four other rescued women after their relatives agreed to take responsibility for them but continued the present woman’s protective custody only because no such relative was available.
The writ petition was filed by an adult woman, referred to as Victim No.3, challenging her detention in a protective home under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. She was rescued during a police raid conducted at a lodging facility, following which a criminal case was registered against certain accused persons for offences under the Act. After the rescue, the learned Magistrate conducted an inquiry under Section 17(2) of the Act and directed that Victim No.3 be detained in a protective home for a period of one year.
The Magistrate’s decision was primarily based on the assessment that the victim had no relatives to take custody of her, lacked a stable source of income, and there was a possibility that she might again engage in immoral activities if released. This order was challenged before the Sessions Court by the victims, including Victim No.3, but the revision application was dismissed, affirming the Magistrate’s order.
Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, Victim No.3 approached the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that she was a major, not an accused, and that her detention amounted to an unreasonable restriction on her personal liberty. The State opposed the petition, supporting the earlier orders on the ground of her vulnerability and lack of familial support.
The Court examined whether an adult victim could be detained in a protective home against her wishes solely on the apprehension that she may again engage in commercial sex work. The Court observed that “PITA 1956 was not meant to punish a victim of the sexual exploitation” and that the statute draws a clear distinction between victims and perpetrators.
While analysing Section 17 of the Act, the Court noted that “the necessity of detention of victim No.3 in a protective home ought to have been determined on the touchstone of the constitutional rights of personal liberty and fundamental freedom.” It recorded that the Magistrate had not found that the victim was suffering from any disability or that her release posed any threat to society.
The Court further stated that “the mere fact that Victim No.3 was alone, by itself, could not have been a justifiable ground to detain Victim No.3 in a protective home.” It found that the lower courts had proceeded on an assumption that absence of family support would inevitably lead to relapse, without any supporting material.
Referring to earlier decisions, the Court reiterated that “the victims being major, their fundamental rights to move from one place to another place or to reside at a place of their choice and choose their vocation has to be considered.” It also addressed the requirement under Section 17(5), observing that “the legislature while using the word ‘may’ wanted to use it in a mandatory sense,” making assistance of a panel of respectable persons an important safeguard.
The Court concluded that “in the absence of any material to justify an inference that the interest of the society and the victim could only be protected by detaining her in a protective home, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.”
The Court directed that “the Writ Petition stands allowed” and “the impugned order dated 24 June 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yeola, as well as the order dated 19 April 2025 passed by the learned Magistrate directing detention of the Petitioner – Victim No.3 in a protective home, stand quashed and set aside. The Petitioner – victim No.3 be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.”
“The Petitioner – Victim No.3 shall not indulge in any activity identical to one which led to the rescue of victim No.3 and her detention in a protective home.” The rule was made absolute, and “there shall be no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhijeet V. Jangale, Advocate, with Ms. Nikita Bordepatil, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. R.S. Tendulkar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: XYZ v. State of Maharashtra
Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-AS:1926
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 4726 of 2025
Bench: Justice N.J. Jamadar
