LAXMAN KIRAN BIRAJDARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:38135




                        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
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