Citation: Rani Pratap Singh v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Revision Application No. 461 of 2015, Bombay High Court (Justice M.M. Sathaye), decided on 01.10.2026 | CNR No. HCBM010416682015
The Bombay High Court has upheld a woman’s conviction for running a brothel in a Grant Road building, and has strongly rejected the argument that she could not be convicted on the word of a victim who was allegedly an illegal immigrant, calling it “victim shaming”.
On 17 February 2011, an NGO, Rescue Foundation, tipped off the D.B. Marg police that girls were being kept for prostitution in rooms on the first floor of Krishna Building, Pavwala Street. A decoy customer, a police team and a panch witness went in, and the police said that a Rs 500 note given to the decoy was found on Rani Pratap Singh, who called herself the manager. Two women were found, and condoms and tissue papers were seized. In 2014, the special ITPA court at Mazgaon convicted her under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and sentenced her to concurrent terms of two and three years, and the Sessions Court confirmed this in 2015. Justice M.M. Sathaye dismissed her revision. He said that the argument that a victim who is allegedly a Bangladeshi illegal immigrant cannot be believed against an Indian citizen is “completely misconceived”, and the offence does not become lesser because of the victim’s status. He relied on the Supreme Court’s Prajwala ruling that the Act aims to punish the exploiters and not the women. On the other arguments, he held that NGO workers who act as decoy and complainant are not “interested witnesses”, since independent witnesses are not available in brothel raids. The panch witness, a shopkeeper near the police chowky, was not “pliable” simply because he was a repeat panch. The Investigating Officer was properly authorised in writing by the Assistant Commissioner of Police under Section 14 of the Act. The telephone and electricity bills, which showed a different building, concerned only the co-accused who was acquitted. Consent of the victim is immaterial under Section 6, and the lower courts had taken a lenient view on punishment. The court said that it cannot reappreciate evidence in revision, and gave her four weeks to surrender.
A victim’s immigration status or alleged illegal stay does not weaken a prosecution under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act or make the offence lesser, since the law targets those who exploit, and arguing otherwise amounts to victim shaming. Because independent witnesses are rarely available in brothel raids, NGO workers who act as decoy and complainant are not treated as interested witnesses merely because of their association. A general written authorisation by the Special Police Officer under proviso (iii) to Section 14 is enough for an Inspector to act, and a High Court in revision will not reappreciate evidence where the lower courts have given concurrent findings of fact.