Bombay High Court
MUNNA ALIAS RAFIQUE SHARIF SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The court held that the applicant, as the owner of the premises used for illegal prostitution and trafficking and with knowledge of such activities, is not entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Munna alias Rafique Shaikh, who was accused of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the POCSO Act, 2012 and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 for alleged prostitution and trafficking activities taking place in a flat he owned. The applicant argued that he was merely a landlord, had executed a leave‑and‑license agreement, and had even served an eviction notice before the FIR, contending that he bore no direct involvement. The court rejected these submissions, holding that ownership of premises used for illegal and immoral activities, coupled with knowledge of such use and a history of similar antecedents, makes the owner liable and unsuitable for bail. The court also dismissed the claim that pre‑trial detention amounted to punishment, emphasizing the risk of re‑offending. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the owner of premises used for prostitution and trafficking can be granted bail when he is aware of the illegal activities.
- Whether prior criminal antecedents and pending FIRs affect the grant of bail.
- Whether serving an eviction notice prior to the FIR negates liability for the alleged offences.
- Whether continued pre‑trial detention constitutes punishment warranting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 127(4), 137(2), 144, 3(5), 351(2), 49, 61(2), 64, 96, 98, 99
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 — s. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 17, 4
Subjects
- bail
- prostitution
- human trafficking
- property owner liability
- POCSO Act
- Immoral Traffic Act
- pre‑trial detention
- criminal antecedents
- eviction notice
- criminal law
Judgment
14.BA.3144.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
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
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
5 of 5
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.08.21
12:23:53 +0530
Checking your session…