Make CBI a party to woman's plea against 'sex racket': HC

The seven members of a family, suspected of running a kidnapping-cum-sex-racket here had secured anticipatory bail last year and the government had decided not to challenge it, the Bombay High Court was told today.
The submission was made by Maharashtra Advocate General Rohit Deo to a bench of justices Ranjit More and Anuja Prabhudessai, which expressed surprise over the government's decision and sought the law officer's explanation saying it was a "sensitive case."
This led the advocate general to tell the bench that the government would soon review its decision and he would inform the court of it on the next date of hearing on May 3.

The law officer had appeared before the bench in response its summon to him.
The court had sought his appearance today while hearing yesterday the plea of the suspected kidnapping-cum-sex racket victim, alleging police inaction on her complaint and seeking the CBI probe into the racket.
While hearing the victim's plea today, the bench also made the CBI a party to her plea to seek its stand on taking over the investigation into the racket.

The victim had said in her petition that she was abducted from Agra in Uttar Pradesh at an age of seven and does not remember her parents now.

She said she was raised by a family in Mumbai along with six to seven other girls, all of whom were kidnapped from various places in the country at young age and and were forced into prostitution on attaining 13 to 14 years of age.
She alleged it was a big sex racket in which the family had prepared fake documents to show that the kidnapped girls were their own daughters and had raised them as their children.
Gradually, they were forced into sex trade, it said.
On the law officer's submission today that the government's Law and Judiciary Department had decided not to challenge the bail order to the family members, the bench told him that let the prosecutors, investigating officer and the Directorate of Prosecution decide whether to bail to family members should be challenged.

The bench asked the law officer to consult the Law and Judiciary Department of the state later if there is a need.