Judgment : Oral Order: 1. This case involves trafficking in a child by the Applicant, who is stated to be a brothel owner/brothel keeper. She has been convicted, inter alia, under Section 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (the ITP Act) for detaining, inter alia, a minor in the brothel which she runs and for detaining her for use in commercial sex with persons. 2. The impugned judgment shows that in a raid conducted by the Police, a minor child, inter alia, has complained that she was detained and ill-treated by the accused after being brought from her native place, Nanded, to the accused. She wanted to be rescued. Along with her several other girls had been rescued. These are children in need of care and protection under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 3. The prosecution case that is made out is of trafficking in children/child upon the rescue of several girls in the raid. The Applicant also claims to have two minor children, though that fact is not substantiated. It is seen that a mother of two minor children has been convicted of offence involving use of minor children, incapable of consenting, for the purpose of prostitution. 4. Mr.Warunjikar has not referred to the evidence. He argued essentially upon the fact that the Applicant is a lady who has already undergone sentence of 15 months. 5. After trial, the Applicant has been convicted. She has been in custody since 8.9.2008 and accordingly, has undergone a sentence of 14 months thus far. 6. The first aspect that the Court has to consider for such a heinous crime is that trafficking in persons is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, the Fundamental Right of every Indian citizen not to be trafficked. Such act constitutes the grossest violence of the Human Rights of the victim child. 7. The offence is prone to repetition since the Applicant is shown to be a brothel owner and accordingly carries on the business of running a brothel, in which, inter alia, a child was detained. Despite the specific provision under Section 18 of the ITP Act, the learned APP states, upon instructions, that the prosecution has not taken any steps for closure of the brothel or for eviction of the offenders from the brothel premises. Despite the specific provision under Section 18 of the ITP Act, the learned APP states, upon instructions, that the prosecution has not taken any steps for closure of the brothel or for eviction of the offenders from the brothel premises. In fact, the Applicant’s Advocate also stated to Court that the brothel has not been sealed, as required under Section 18 of the ITP Act. The same offence, albeit for violations upon other persons, including children, is liable to be committed if the Applicant is released, since she is the owner of the brothel which has not even been closed/sealed. 8. No case for release on bail by suspension of the sentence is made out. Application rejected.