1 946ba1321.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 946 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1321 OF 2026 LAKHAN RAJENDRA BHANGE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sandanshiv Milind B. & Mr. Chandrakant T. Kadam APP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.V. Hange ... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATE : 19.08.2026 PER COURT : 1. The applicant seeks regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, in connection with Crime No. 501 of 2026, registered with Newasa Police Station, District Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under Section 143(3) of the BNS alongwith Section 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956. 2. Perusal of the FIR suggest that the offence was registered on 12.06.2026 and on the same date the applicant came to be arrested and since then he is continuous to be in custody. 3. The prosecution case emerges from the source information allegedly received by the Police Inspector, Newasa Police Station stating that the activities of the prosecution were being carried out on the 2 946ba1321.26 establishment, which is owned and possessed by the present applicant under the name Shri Hotel and Lodging at Handi Nimgaon, Taluka Newasa, District Ahilyanagar. Acting upon the said information the police secured the presence of two panch witnesses and arranged the raid operation. Two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- each were handed over to one of the pancha customer, with instructions that he shall visit the shop and asked for the company of woman and after arrangement is made predetermined signal shall be given to the police party, who are standing outside the hotel, from the window of room allotted to him. According to the prosecution, upon receiving signal, the raiding party entered the hotel and also in the adjoining lodging premises. Two co-accused persons were found in the hotel area, who disclosed themselves as they are working in the said establishment and also informed that the present applicant is the owner and he is managing the affairs of the hotel and lodging. It is further alleged that the applicant was found inside the lodging premises and when his personal search was taken, the said two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/-, which were handed over to the pancha customer were recovered from his possession. When the premises of the lodging was inspected, one woman was found in a room, while second women was found in a separate room with the pancha customer. There were other material articles which were lying in the room alongwith mobile phones which were seized by the Police. 3 946ba1321.26 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is a young man aged about 25 years with no criminal antecedents. He argued that he had started business recently and he was not indulged in running any prostitution business and/or conducting the hotel business as brothel. In fact, he submitted that the applicant’s family runs a small hotel at the road side and it is not a lodging which is being operated by the applicant. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicant also relied upon the registration certificate issued under the Food, Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It was fairly brought to the notice of the Court by the learned APP that the said certificate is in the name of applicant’s father namely Rajendra Bange and not in the name of the present applicant. However, the learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that said certificate supports the contention of the applicant that the establishment was intended and registered as food business. He further argued that both the women who are terminated as victim are adult, and therefore, they were present in the premises on their own wish and will. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that all the articles which were found lying in the premises are seized. The statements of witnesses are recorded and the documents concerning the ownership of the premises and control of the establishment are also collected. He further submits that the entire investigation is almost complete and the charge-sheet is likely to be filed at any moment. He, therefore, submits that the 4 946ba1321.26 applicant who has been arrested on 12.06.2026 does not deserve to continue in custody and prayed for allowing the application and releasing the applicant on bail. 6. The learned APP for the respondent State opposes the application. He submits that the applicant is not merely an employed person and independently was found present at the establishment. He submits that being the owner of the premises he is also the person who is controlling the entire affairs of that premises. The seized currency notes are recovered from the person of the applicant, which attributes him a specific role of involvement in the alleged offence. In addition to that he submits that the statements of the victim women also attributes a specific role, wherein, the allegations are that the women victims were posed in the prosecution by the present applicant. He further argues that the offences under Section 143(3) of the BNS prescribes rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years, which may extend to imprisonment for life. 7. I have heard both the learned Advocates and also perused the documents which have placed on record by the applicant as well as the Investigation papers produced before this Court by the learned APP. 8. No doubt, the Court is convinced that the accusations are serious in nature under Section 143(3) of the BNS and provides 5 946ba1321.26 substantive sentence. The statements of women and the recovery of prerecorded notes from the applicant constitute the material which cannot be discarded while considering this application. At the same time, as far as the severity of the offence is concerned, it is an important consideration, but it cannot be a sole ground for continuation of detention of the applicant and the Court must also consider the role attributed to the applicant with the nature of the accusations at the stage of the investigation. The necessity of the further custodial interrogation of the applicant alongwith possibility that he may indulge in any activity of tampering or hampering the evidence cannot be ruled out. 9. The material placed before the Court indicates that the raid was conducted on 12.06.2026, the applicant was arrested on the same date and was initially remanded to the police custody and subsequently has been taken in custody. The prosecution states that the statements of both the women and the other witnesses have also been recorded. The mobile phone and other articles which were found in the lodging premises as well as in the hotel premises are also seized. The documents pertaining to the ownership of the present applicant, along with necessary certificates required for functioning the hotel or lodging business are also recovered and collected. The learned APP, upon instructions, also submits that the investigation is almost complete and for completion of the remaining investigation, substantial material is 6 946ba1321.26 required to be recovered from the applicant. 10. Thus, the case is predominantly based upon the trap proceedings. The recovery is already effected. The statements are already have been recorded and the documents are already have been seized and collected. Thus, the prosecution has not pointed out that any particular recovery is remained to be effected from the applicant or any specific aspect for which the continuation of the custody of the present applicant is necessary. The statements of two women victim no doubt require due consideration, however, both the women victims are adult, and therefore, the physical confinement of those women in the premises along with precise circumstances in which they alleged to have come to the establishment, the nature of the alleged inducement or on compulsion both of them have to be indulged in the prostitution and therefore, alongwith ingredients of Section 143 of the BNS it will have to be determined upon appreciation of the evidence at the time of trial and no final conclusion in that regard is warranted at this stage. 11. The arguments of the learned APP pertaining to the registration certificate under the Food, Safety and Standards Act, 2006 not being issued in the name of the present applicant but standing in the name of the father of the applicant can also be a matter for a separate action. 12. Coupled with the aforesaid facts and circumstances and two 7 946ba1321.26 co-accused have already been released on bail by the learned Sessions Court, though the role of the present applicant is not identical for the reason that two co-accused are the employees of the applicant and the present applicant is the owner and thus, it requires for the present applicant to manage the entire establishment, the applicant therefore, cannot be released on parity but considering that the co-accused have already been released on bail and this can also be kept the basis for releasing the present applicant on bail. Hence the following order : ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The applicant Lakhan s/o Rajendra Bhange shall be released on bail in Crime No. 501 of 2026 registered with Newasa Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 143(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the following conditions : a) The applicant shall attend the police station till framing of the charge as and when called by the concerned Investigating Officer, unless their attendance is specifically exempted. b) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, threaten, induce or influence the informant or any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. c) The applicant shall furnish his current residential addresses and mobile numbers to the 8 946ba1321.26 Investigating Officer and the trial Court within seven days of release, intimate any change forthwith, and attend the Investigating Officer upon prior written notice if further investigation is required. d) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court and, if he possess passports, shall deposit the same with the trial Court within seven days of his release. e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of a similar nature while on bail. f) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. g) All observations in this order are prima facie and confined to the decision of this bail application. The trial Court shall decide the case independently on the evidence led before it. h) The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) mahajansb/