Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH SADANAND 11-wp-1506-24.odt SADANAND SHERLA SHERLA Date:

2024.04.29

15:55:11 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1506 OF 2024 Pranav H. Patel ...Petitioner (Org. Accused No.30)

Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Jatin P. Karia (Shah) a/w. Adv. Snehankita M. Munj, Ms Dipti J. Karia and Ms Shraddha Kamble, Ms Preeti S.G. and Mr. Tushar B. Patel for the Petitioner.

Mr. V.A. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent/State.

PSI B. K. Desai, Samta Nagar Police Station present.

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK &

N. R. BORKAR, JJ.

DATE : 25.04.2024.

PC:-

1. Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

2. The petitioner challenges the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 272 of 2018 pending before the Sessions Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai. The proceedings are arising out of First Information Report (FIR) dated 17.12.2017 registered with Samata Nagar Police Station vide C.R. No. 740 of 2017 for offences under Sections 370(4)(5), 294, 114 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 8, (1)(2)(4) of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act, 2016 (for short ‘the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Bar Act’) , Sections 75, 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and Section 131-A of the Maharashtra Police Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.12.2017, on receipt of information, the police raided premises wherein the obscene dances were allegedly performed by some of the women. The petitioner and several other persons were present at the premises. It is alleged that the petitioner is one of the customer who was allegedly encouraging the dancers.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is un-disputedly not concerned with the offence under Section 370(4)(5) of the IPC. The provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Bar Act are not attracted against the petitioner. In absence of any cogent evidence to connect that the petitioner has encouraged or abetted the woman performing obscene dance, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following decisions of this Court:

(i) Veer V. Dadhia vs. The State of Maharashtra¹ (ii) Nilesh N. Gadge vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

(iii) Sumeet H. Sarin vs. The State of Maharashtra³ (iv) Lalit and ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra⁴ (v) Jitendra R. Kamat vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr⁵ (vi) Rushabh M. Mehta and anr. vs. State of Maharashtra⁶

5. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner was present at the scene of offence. He was encouraging the dancers. Charge-

sheet is filed against the petitioner.

6. We have perused the first information report and charge- sheet. Apparently, the name of petitioner is reflected in FIR as customer along with several other persons who were present at the hotel where raid was conducted. No specific overt-act is attributed to him. The petitioner is not concerned with the

1 Criminal Writ Petition (St) No. 18625 of 2023 decided on 8.4.2024

2 Criminal Application No. 1032 of 2022 decided on 21.3.2024

3 Criminal Writ Petition (ST) No.866 of 2023 decided on 14.12.2023.

4 CDJ 2023 BHC 1581

5 Criminal Writ Petition No. 4603 of 2021 decided on 6.9.2022

6 Criminal Writ Petition (St) No. 4799 of 2020 decided on 14.1.2021 dance performances or connected with the hotel where th e dance was performed.

7. In case of Jitendra R. Kamat (supra), Section 294 of the IPC was invoked along with other provisions. The factual matrix of the said case would indicate that the accused therein was present at the spot when the ladies were dancing in obscene manner. This Court held that no specific allegations were made against him. Nor any specific role was attributed to the accused. He was present at the place where raid was conducted. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Co