Bombay High Court

PAVAN MADAN SONPARAKHEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 12 June 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Holding

The court held that custodial interrogation was not required and granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond and sureties.

Summary

The applicant, Pavan Madan Sonparakhe, sought anticipatory bail anticipating arrest in a case alleging offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act for allegedly acting as a pimp. The prosecution claimed that a police raid on a hotel rescued victims and that chat evidence on a victim's phone linked the applicant to the crime. The applicant argued he was a rickshaw driver, not present at the scene, had no antecedents, and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The State contended that the chat evidence and prior antecedents justified interrogation and denial of bail. The court, after reviewing the FIR and evidence, concluded that the applicant was not found at the incident spot and that custodial interrogation was not required, granting anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs.30,000 with sureties, while directing the trial court to decide the case on its merits.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant despite allegations under B.N.S. and PITA.
Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is required in view of the evidence.
Whether the applicant's alleged involvement as a pimp warrants denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 143(2), 143(3), 3(5)
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 — s. 4, 5

Subjects

anticipatory bail
prostitution
pimping
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act
custodial interrogation
bail bond

Judgment

                                                             16-ABA-1038-2026 (CR).doc



V.A. Tikam


               IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

     CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1038 OF 2026

                     Pavan Madan Sonparakhe
                             VERSUS
                       State Of Maharashtra
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Kastubh Nate a/w. Mr. Vivek , for the Applicant.
Mr. P.P. Jadahv, APP for Respondent-State.
PSI Shamburaj Jadhav, Fursungi Police Station, Pune City
_________________________________________________________________
                                 CORAM           : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
                                 DATE            : 12th JUNE 2026

P.C. :

1.           The applicant is apprehending arrest in C.R.No. 0442 of 2026

registered with Fursungi      Police Station, Pune Rural, for the offences

punishable under Sections 143(2), 143(3), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita

(for short 'B.N.S.')(Corresponding to Section 370 and Section 34 of IPC),

Sections 4 and 5 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956(for short

'PITA Act').

2.           It is prosecution’s case that on secret informant, police raided

on Crystal Hotel and found that prostitution was going on. Police rescued

victims from the said hotel. It is alleged that the applicant was providing

victims for prostitution to the customers by taking money.

3.           It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the


                                   Page 1 of 3
                                                           16-ABA-1038-2026 (CR).doc



V.A. Tikam


applicant was rickshaw driver. He was not found on the spot. He has no

antecedents. His custodial interrogation is not required and      requested to

allow the application.

4.           It is contention of learned APP that the mobile chat of the

applicant with victim was found in the mobile of victim. His number was

saved in the mobile of victim, which shows his involvement in the crime.

applicant has antecedents. Considering the allegations against the

applicant, his custodial interrogation is required.    Hence, requested to

reject the application.

5.           I have heard both learned counsel, perused the FIR and the

documents produced on record. The allegations against the applicant are

that he was acting as an agent between victim and customers. He was not

found at the incident spot. Considering these facts, custodial interrogation

of the Applicant is not required and I pass following order :

                                   ORDER

       (i)   In the even of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail in C.R.

             0442 of 2026 registered with Fursungi Police Station, Pune

             Rural, on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with

             one or two sureties in the like amount.

       (ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and



                                   Page 2 of 3
                                                            16-ABA-1038-2026 (CR).doc



V.A. Tikam


             when required.

             The application is allowed in above terms and stands disposed

of.

6.           It is made clear that the above observations are made only for

the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its

own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations

made in this order.

7.           All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.



                                                 (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)




                                   Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…