Bombay High Court
KAILASH KETAN DAS AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The applicants, Kailash Ketan Das and another, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in Crime No. 860 of 2026 for alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act, 2016, arising from a police raid on Samudra Bar where women were found dancing and confined in a poorly ventilated room. Although the FIR does not name them, the prosecution alleges the first applicant managed the bar and the second financed it, and points to the seriousness of offences such as Section 110 of the BNS. The State argued that their roles required investigation, especially given prior criminal antecedents of a co‑accused. The court noted that the chargesheet had already been filed, no injury to the women was proven, and that the applicants were willing to cooperate with the investigation. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions including a personal bond, surety, cooperation, non‑interference with witnesses, and jurisdictional restrictions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to persons not named in the FIR but alleged to be manager and financier of an establishment involved in alleged obscene dance offences.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences, particularly under Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, warrants denial of bail.
- Whether imposing conditions on bail is appropriate to ensure the applicants' presence and cooperation during investigation.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 110, 223, 296, 3(5), 54
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- obscene dance
- women's dignity
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act
- bail conditions
- police investigation
Judgment
4-ABA-2339-2026.ODT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2339 OF 2026
Mr. Kailash Ketan Das & Anr. …Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Rohin Chauhan,
for the Applicants.
Mr. Geeta P. Mulekar, A.P. P., for the Respondent – State.
PSI - Khan, Dahisar Police Station, Mumbai, is present.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 31ST AUGUST 2026
P. C:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned
APP for the respondent - state.
2. The applicants are apprehending arrest in Crime No. 860 of
2026, dated 09.06.2026, registered with Dahisar Police Station,
Brihanmumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections 54, 110,
223, 296 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023
(for Short, “BNS”) and Sections 3, 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4) of the
Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants,
Page 1 of 6
st
31 August 2026
4-ABA-2339-2026.ODT
Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working Therein)
Act, 2016 and Section 131 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1959.
3. The FIR came to be registered on the basis of a report
lodged by Police Constable Ajit Kundalik Dhage attached to
Dahisar Police Station alleging that on 08.06.2026 the
establishment by name, ‘Samudra Bar and Restaurant’ near
Dahisar Check Naka was raided and it was found that few women
were employed to perform the dance in front of customers. It was
also found that about 13 women were confined in one room in
suffocating condition since there was no ventilation to the said
room. On the basis of these allegations, FIR came to be registered
against total 70 persons. At this stage, chargesheet is already filed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that these
applicants are not named in the FIR and they are apprehending
arrest on the basis of allegations made by the prosecution that the
applicant no.1 is Manager of the Samudra Bar and Restaurant and
the applicant no.2 is the Financer of the said Bar and Restaurant.
He submits that, although there are allegations, there is no
material to show that any of the offences under provisions of
Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants,
Page 2 of 6
st
31 August 2026
4-ABA-2339-2026.ODT
Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working Therein)
Act, 2016 could be attracted and further there is nothing to show
that the offence under section 110 of BNS could also be attracted.
He also submits that all other accused persons have been released
on bail and chargesheet has already been filed. He submits that
these applicants are ready to extend cooperation, if any further
investigation is required to be carried out against these applicants.
5. Learned APP for the respondent - State submits that
considering the nature of offence, the role of these applicants
needs to be investigated. He also states that since there are six
criminal antecedents against the applicant no.2 Jaya Koti Poojari,
the involvement of these applicants cannot be ruled out. However,
there is no dispute about the filing of chargesheet against all other
accused persons.
6. Learned counsel for applicant also states that, in
accordance with the order dated 20 th August 2026 passed by
this Court, the applicants have attended the Police Station on
24th August 2026 and 25th August 2026 and are again ready to
extend co-operation as regards any further investigation against
them.
Page 3 of 6
st
31 August 2026
4-ABA-2339-2026.ODT
7. Learned APP for respondent – State does not dispute the
contention that the applicants have attended the police station
on these dates. She however, states that there are similar
criminal antecedents against accused No.2 Jaya Pujari and
therefore the applicants be put to stringent conditions in case
bail is granted.
8. It has to be noted that, amongst all other alleged offences,
offence under Section 110 of BNS is most serious, which is
punishable up to three years and pertinent to note, in case any
hurt is caused to any person then only it is punishable up to
seven years. This offence is invoked in view of the allegation
that thirteen women were kept in one room which was not
having sufficient light and ventilation. However, there is nothing
on record to indicate that any hurt was caused to any of them.
9. Considering all above contentions and the fact that the
chargesheet is already filed, the presence of these applicants can
be secured by putting them to the certain conditions and their
personal liberty needs to be protected, subject to certain
conditions.
Page 4 of 6
st
31 August 2026
4-ABA-2339-2026.ODT
10. Hence, I pass following order :-
ORDER
(i) The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) In the event of arrest of the applicants in
Crime No.860 of 2026, registered with Dahisar
Police Station, Brihanmumbai, for the offence
punishable under Sections 54, 110, 223, 296
read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita 2023 and Sections 3, 8(1), 8(2) and
8(4) of the Maharashtra Prohibition of
Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants, Bar
Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women
(Working Therein) Act, 2016 and Section 131
of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1959, they be
released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of
Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand
only) each, with one solvent surety of the like
amount.
(iii) The applicants are directed to extend co-
operation during investigation and trial.
(iv) The applicants shall not influence the
prosecution witnesses, in any manner.
(v) The applicants shall not leave the jurisdiction
of this Court without prior permission.
Page 5 of 6
st
31 August 2026
4-ABA-2339-2026.ODT
(vi) The applicants shall furnish their address
proof, identity proof and mobile number on
record.
(vii) The applicants shall not commit any offence in
future and shall attend the court regularly.
(viii) Breach of any of these conditions, shall be a
ground for cancellation of the bail.
11. Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in above
terms.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
VDMokal/-
Page 6 of 6
st
31 August 2026
Checking your session…