Ravindra Baitha v. The State Of Bihar

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 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.

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

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;

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