Patna High Court
Ravindra BaithaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, as there was insufficient evidence linking him to the alleged immoral traffic offences.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravindra Baitha, owner of The Royal Cafe & Restaurant, was implicated in a case alleging immoral traffic activities at the hotel. He applied for anticipatory bail, asserting that he had leased the premises to Amrit Sahani and had no involvement in the alleged offences. The prosecution presented material seized from the hotel, but medical examinations showed no evidence of sexual activity, and the petitioner had a clean antecedent. The court examined the lease agreement, the lack of incriminating evidence linking the petitioner, and the monitoring of the hotel by the lessee. Considering these factors, the court granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and specific conditions, including appearance before the trial court and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is liable under sections 127(6), 143(3), 144(2), 64, 61(2) of the BNS and sections 3‑8 of the Immoral Traffic Act.
- Whether the lease agreement and lack of direct evidence justify granting anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the medical report negate the prosecution’s case.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 127(6), 143(3), 144(2), 61(2), 64
- Immoral Traffic Act — s. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- immoral traffic
- lease agreement
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30235 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2026 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali
======================================================
Ravindra Baitha S/O Sukan Baitha Resident of village- Chakramdas, P.S.-
Vaishali, District- Vaishali at Hajipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Dilip Kumar Roy, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Meena Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 24-06-2026 Heard Mr. Uma Shankar Singh, learned Senior
counsel duly assisted by Mr.Dilip Kumar Roy, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mrs. Meena Singh, learned APP for the
State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No. 123 of 2026 for the
offence punishable under sections 127(6), 143(3), 144(2), 64,
61(2) of the BNS and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, of the Immoral
Traffic Act, lodged on 16.02.2026 by the informant.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against
the petitioner is that he along with other accused persons was
running a hotel, namely, ‘The Royal Cafe & Restaurant’
wherein, as alleged, flesh trade was going on and some
incriminating article were also recovered.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30235 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR
and he has falsely been implicated in this case due to he being
owner of the said hotel. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that it is true that the petitioner is the owner of
the hotel, namely, ‘The Royal Cafe & Restaurant’ but it was
given to one Amresh Sahani on monthly rent basis through
agreement dated 01.06.2022 for ten years at the rate of Rs.
20,000/- per month. The said agreement has been appended with
the instant anticipatory bail application as Annexure P/2. It has
next been submitted that the material, which is said to have been
seized from the hotel, is in no way connected to this petitioner
as the entire affairs in the hotel was being monitored by Amresh
Sahani who is also an accused in this case.
5. Vide order of this Court dated 08.05.2026, case
diary was called for in this case and from the materials which
have surfaced during course of investigation and the medical
examination conducted on the persons who were arrested from
the said hotel, no sexual activities is said have been found out as
per the pathological report or injury report which is appended
with the case diary and the petitioner has got clean antecedent.
6. On the other hand, learned APP looking to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30235 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
3/4
nature of allegation has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail
to the petitioner while the facts which have cropped up during
course of investigation and the submissions which have been
made referring the materials has not be controverted.
7. Considering the facts that the entire affairs of the
hotel in question were monitored by one Amresh Sahani in
whose favour, the agreement is entered by this petitioner and the
petitioner having got clean antecedent and no incriminating
article with respect to immoral trafficking has been found to
connect this petitioner in this case, this Court is inclined to
extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on
bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-V, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with aforesaid
PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the
family member/relative of the petitioner(s)
who shall provide official document to show
his/her bona fide;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30235 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
4/4
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear
on each and every date before the Trial
Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason
will entail cancellation of his/their bail
bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no
way try to induce or promise or threat the
witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist
from committing any criminal offence again,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of his/their bail
bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.