IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2146 OF 2025 LAXMAN KIRAN BIRAJDAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER … Mr. Ganesh J. Kore, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the Respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 20th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The Applicant has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime Report bearing No. 317 of 2025 dated 28.10.2025 registered at Murum Police Station, District Dharashiv for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and under Sections 3, 4, 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short “PITA”). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the Anti-Human Trafficking Cell, Dharashiv, led by Police Inspector R. S. Gaikwad along with Woman Police Head Constable Venutai Popat Puri, received specific confidential intelligence regarding an illegal prostitution racket operating out of an unnamed hotel- cum-lodge located in a tin shed at Gut No. 365, Yenegur Shivara, along the 928.ABA2146.25.odt 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:38135 Solapur–Hyderabad Highway. Upon obtaining necessary authorization from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Umarga, a trap was laid. Two independent panchas were requisitioned at Murum Police Station, and a private individual, Sachin Tukaram Kamble, agreed to act as a decoy customer (punter). The pre- planned trap was executed, and thereafter the spot panchnama and preliminary investigation revealed that the premises owner, Laxman Kiran Birajdar, the present Applicant, in collusion with managers Sanjay Bansode and Malang Bhojegawar, was running an organized commercial prostitution enterprise. The accused were soliciting incoming customers at a rate of 1,500 per transaction, housing vulnerable women on the premises, and ₹ inducing them into commercial sex work for financial exploitation. All incriminating articles, digital evidence, accounting logs, and currency notes were formally seized under panchnama in the presence of independent witnesses. Consequently, the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered at Murum Police Station. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is falsely implicated in the present crime and that the Applicant is running a hotel in the village and has been roped into the crime due to the enmity with the villagers. He further submits that the ownership of the hotel per se does not automatically indicate the involvement of the Applicant in trafficking 928.ABA2146.25.odt 2 of 4 unless there is clear, conscious role attributed to the Applicant which is absent in the present case. Thereafter, he submits that the alleged Rs. 19 Lakh bank transactions are purely business related and having such transactions cannot amount to illegal earnings without a documentary proof linking it to trafficking. Lastly, he submits that there are no incriminating materials or articles recovered from the Applicant personally and he has no criminal antecedents. 4. The Learned A.P.P. for Respondent State strongly opposes the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the Applicant is involved in serious offence of trafficking of women for the purpose of prostitution and forced the women into the prostitution. He points out the earlier orders of this Court wherein the interim relief was granted by the earlier order dated 23.12.2025 was later challenged due to the subsequent developments reflected in the order dated 26.12.2025, showing the conduct of the Applicant having made threatening posts on his social media account. He further took this court through the investigation papers which show that the Applicant is the owner of the hotel wherein the illegal activities were being carried out. Therefore, custodial interrogation is necessary for proper investigation of the present crime. 5. Prima facie perusal of the investigation papers indicate that the 928.ABA2146.25.odt 3 of 4 Applicant is the owner of the hotel wherein illegal activities under PITA were being carried out. This is not the case whereas the Applicant is falsely implicated. The material on record clearly shows the complicity of the Applicant in the crime. The conduct of the Applicant after grant of interim relief is duly taken into account. The investigation papers indicate that there is sufficient evidence being collected to show the involvement of the Applicant in crime in question. Moreover, the offence is of serious nature and thus, this is not a fit case to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail. 6. In view of the above, the application stands rejected. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 928.ABA2146.25.odt 4 of 4