14.BA.3144.2026.doc HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.) IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.3144 OF 2026 Munna alias Rafique Shaikh .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Vishal Babar, Advocate for Applicant.  Ms. Anuja Gotad, APP for Respondent No.1.  Ms. Ashwini Acharii, Advocate for Respondent No.2 appointed through legal aid.  PSI – Gadilwad, Faraskhana Police Station, Pune City. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Babar, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Gotad, learned APP for Respondent and Ms. Acharii, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 appointed through legal aid. 2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No.16 of 2026 registered with Faraskhana Police Station, Pune City for offences punishable under Sections 144, 96, 98, 99, 3(5), 351(2), 115(2), 127(4), 137(2), 64, 49 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 4 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 1 of 5 14.BA.3144.2026.doc 3. A total number of 9 Accused persons have been arrested. Applicant is one of the Accused persons. Statements have been recorded. In the present case victim is duly represented by Ms. Acharii, who is 18 years old, which in effect would otherwise mean that she would be below 18 years on the date on which the charge of the prosecution has been filed and prosecuted in the present case. 4. Briefly stated, Applicant is the owner of Flat No.301 in Begum Building, Budhwar Peth, Pune. Prosecution case is that it was admittedly used as a brothel. One of the submissions advanced by Mr. Babar is with regard to the area and its dubious distinction and recognition that it gets as a red-light area, but that submission by itself will not entitle the Applicant to be absolved from his role in the present crime. When a person owning a property not only has knowledge about the fact as to what the property will be used for and that too an illegal as also an immoral purpose which will be in conflict with the statutory laws enacted by the Government and it would be prima facie detrimental to the Society at large, such an Applicant loses his right to argue the aforesaid submission. 5. Mr. Babar would argue that considering the role of the Applicant and that he having executed the leave and license agreement only with the licensee in question, who is the principal Accused person, he would not be responsible for the alleged prostitution activity inside 2 of 5 14.BA.3144.2026.doc the flat. It is common knowledge and in public know-how that when leave and license agreements are executed, the usage of the licensed premises for any immoral or illegal purpose always forms the fulcrum of such an agreement and it is always prohibited by the Licensor/s. No sane person who is the owner of a property would like to be apprehended or offended in such a crime for being a party to such an act. The fact that the Applicant before me has serious, similarly-placed antecedents for more than 13 years prior to the lodging of the present First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) itself does not entitle the Applicant to maintain the Application on the above ground either. The details of the three antecedents of the Applicant registered at Faraskhana Police Station, Pune involving offences under Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 are delineated in the note given by the Applicant’s Advocate admitting the above antecedents which are given hereinunder:- Sr.No. Particulars Status 1 First Information Report No.227 of 2013 Pending 2 First Information Report No.185 of 2013 Pending 3 First Information Report No.201 of 2023 Pending 6. Mr. Babar’s submission is that the Applicant's role being confined to be only the owner of the premises would amount to he having no direct involvement in the crime which is registered, namely that of trafficking and/or of exploitation, as alleged. I am unable to accept this submission since the premises in which the said crime is 3 of 5 14.BA.3144.2026.doc committed belongs to the Applicant and it is not the Applicant's case that the Applicant is not aware of the same. Rather, this is a fit case where the material placed on record prima facie shows that the Applicant is fully aware about the ongoings in the premises. 7. The submission that no overt act is attributed to the Applicant by the prosecutrix should give the Applicant benefit of doubt is also not sustainable since such a crime which occurs in the property of a person is a crime directed against the Society at large. If the Applicant is given the leeway and benefit of doubt on the basis of such submission, it would lead to anarchy in the Society, as every landlord of the property will try and make immoral wealth on the basis of such outraging the modesty of the women, as also minor children and then claim innocence. Such things can never be allowed to happen. 8. One more submission made by Mr. Babar also does not hold water, namely that immediately before registration of the FIR, the Applicant had initiated eviction proceedings against the licensee by giving a notice for eviction to the licensee. This is nothing but an afterthought on anticipating action on the part of the prosecution, and nothing more. Therefore, I also refuse to believe that there is no incriminating recovery or financial benefit attributed to the Applicant in such facts and circumstances. 9. The Applicant is apprehended on 27.01.2026 and he claims 4 of 5 14.BA.3144.2026.doc that he is in continued incarceration and his such incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment. I refuse to accept such submission altogether in the facts of the present case, primarily because if the Applicant is released, there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that the Applicant will not reoffend himself and commit the same offence. Rather, the facts on record prima facie show that the Applicant has committed and reoffended himself time and again in similar causes and similar causes of action for the past more than 13 years. 10. The Applicant therefore, deserves no mercy from this Court since the role of the Applicant in providing his premises for such immoral and illegal activity cannot be pardoned by the Court. 11. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Ms. Acharii learned appointed Advocate through the legal aid. Her fees be paid by the High Court Legal Aid Services Authority as per rules on production of a server copy of this order and other compliances in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of Sanjyot Nitin Telharkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.1 and the Schedule under Regulation 18(1) of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998. 12. This Bail Application is comprehensively dismissed and disposed. H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 1 Judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 134 of 2024 5 of 5 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.08.21 12:23:53 +0530