Voices for Her: A Podcast from Freedom Firm
Aug 28, 2026 · 6 min · 5 segments
**Raghu raises his voice for Chandu and Rupal.** After rescuing two minors, Chandu and Rupal, the police hesitate to file a report against their accused. Our team continues to advocate for the…
Mala MalsteadHostOn July 8, 2025, we learned about a minor from Rajasthan who was being sexually exploited in a brothel in Sangli, Maharashtra.
After gathering sufficient information, we met with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, DSP, Sangli, and shared the information we had on the minor.
The DSP agreed to initiate a raid and connected us with members of the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit and other police officers who would be part of the rescue operation.
At 5pm, we were at the police station coordinating with the police who were assigned to carry out the rescue operation.
While we discussed rescue strategies, the police inspector leading the rescue operation suggested postponing the rescue operation because he did not have sufficient police personnel to carry out the rescue operation.
We insisted that he continue with the rescue as planned because there was a high possibility that the victim would be relocated.
As we were preparing to leave to rescue the victim, it started to rain heavily.
The DSP decided to postpone the rescue operation to the next morning, stating it would be better to complete the post-rescue procedures on the same day.
On July 9, we met the police inspector who was handling the rescue operation.
We made a checklist of each protocol and procedure that needed to be carried out pre- and post-rescue.
At 5.15pm, the police raided the brothel and together we rescued two victims, 17-year-old Chandu, whom we had been tracking, and Rupal, who also appeared to be between 16 and 18 years old.
The police continued to search the brothel and collect incriminating evidence.
The police questioned people from the next house, inquiring about the owner of the house and the brothel keeper.
However, no one shared any helpful information.
After the police completed their reports, we proceeded to the police station with Chandu and Rupal.
At the police station, the police inspector was hesitant to file an FIR because the house owner and brothel keeper were absconding.
After some discussion, our advocate clarified that an FIR could be registered under Section 14 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act , even in the absence of the accused.
Even in light of this information, the police inspector was still hesitant and refused to file an FIR.
On July 10, at 1.23 a.m., we emailed the superintendent of police requesting his assistance to ensure that an FIR was filed.
Later that morning, we submitted a letter to the police inspector to register an FIR.
He still was apprehensive.
We shared a copy of the legal document, Prerna Judgment, and urged him to review the document and its guidelines for senior police officers.
After reviewing the judgment, the police inspector called the Sangli CWC, Child Welfare Committee, to gain further clarity on the situation.
As per the CWC's guidance, the police agreed to file an FIR after Chandu and Rupal received their medical and ossification results.
Chandu and Rupal were brought before the CWC to record their statements.
On July 8, 2025, we learned about a minor from Rajasthan who was being sexually exploited in a brothel in Sangli, Maharashtra.
After gathering sufficient information, we met with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, DSP, Sangli, and shared the information we had on the minor.
The DSP agreed to initiate a raid and connected us with members of the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit and other police officers who would be part of the rescue operation.
At 5pm, we were at the police station coordinating with the police who were assigned to carry out the rescue operation.
While we discussed rescue strategies, the police inspector leading the rescue operation suggested postponing the rescue operation because he did not have sufficient police personnel to carry out the rescue operation.
We insisted that he continue with the rescue as planned because there was a high possibility that the victim would be relocated.
As we were preparing to leave to rescue the victim, it started to rain heavily.
The DSP decided to postpone the rescue operation to the next morning, stating it would be better to complete the post-rescue procedures on the same day.
On July 9, we met the police inspector who was handling the rescue operation.
We made a checklist of each protocol and procedure that needed to be carried out pre- and post-rescue.
At 5.15pm, the police raided the brothel and together we rescued two victims, 17-year-old Chandu, whom we had been tracking, and Rupal, who also appeared to be between 16 and 18 years old.
The police continued to search the brothel and collect incriminating evidence.
The police questioned people from the next house, inquiring about the owner of the house and the brothel keeper.
However, no one shared any helpful information.
After the police completed their reports, we proceeded to the police station with Chandu and Rupal.
At the police station, the police inspector was hesitant to file an FIR because the house owner and brothel keeper were absconding.
After some discussion, our advocate clarified that an FIR could be registered under Section 14 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act , even in the absence of the accused.
Even in light of this information, the police inspector was still hesitant and refused to file an FIR.
On July 10, at 1.23 a.m., we emailed the superintendent of police requesting his assistance to ensure that an FIR was filed.
Later that morning, we submitted a letter to the police inspector to register an FIR.
He still was apprehensive.
We shared a copy of the legal document, Prerna Judgment, and urged him to review the document and its guidelines for senior police officers.
After reviewing the judgment, the police inspector called the Sangli CWC, Child Welfare Committee, to gain further clarity on the situation.
As per the CWC's guidance, the police agreed to file an FIR after Chandu and Rupal received their medical and ossification results.
Chandu and Rupal were brought before the CWC to record their statements.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.