Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Bhageria v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53516 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-301 Year-2025 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR TOWN DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Kumar Bhageria Son of Late Satnarain Prasad Bhageria Resident of Village-Motipur, Ward No. 9, P.S.- Motipur, DistrictMuzaffarpur, (Address mentioned in FIR Hotel Subhadra Palace Ke Hotel Manager Pawan Kumar, Ward No. 9, Thana Motipur, Jila - Muzaffarpur, Subhadra Palace ke Hotel Manager Motipur P.S., Muzaffarpur, Bihar, India). ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bhavesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No.301 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 3,4,5,6,7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.
2/6
4. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 10.06.2025 at 15:45 hours informant got a call from Mobile No. 7070484718 that she had been kept in a room closed and pressurized for illegal sexual relation and she was not aware of the place, where she had been kept. On search through location sent by her, the house was traced and raid was carried out and then victim girl was recovered from second floor and said her name was Ruksar Kumari.
Further the victim narrated to informant that, she was going to Delhi to her sister's place and due to delay, the train left for destination when she came out from station, then a auto driver took her to his house and there she saw three-four girls chatting amongst them about immoral trafficking & upon raid a lady was found in the captive who disclosed her name as Ruksar Kumari aged about 22 years, Wife of Rupesh Yadav, Resident of Village Saraiya, P.S. Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur, upon enquiry from Ruksar three four girls were also found in the said house who disclosed their names as Jyoti, Asi, Kiran Kumari & Dilip Kumar Kushwaha, Lakshman Paswan.
3/6 picks up lovely girl/lady & brings at aforesaid house & there after send photo of the girls at Hotel Subhadra Palace & Hotel the Centre Park & thereafter transfer the said girls to the aforesaid hotel for flesh trade and on the next day get her returned back at the aforesaid rented house of Dilip Kumar Kushwaha. The said co-accused also revealed the name of the petitioner as well as the name of Manager of Hotel the Center Park as Ankit Kumar. Thereafter informant raided the house of Dilip Kumar Kushwaha, which belongs to Rahul Kumar & after following due process of search & seizure seized several incriminating materials from there & seizure list in respect thereof was prepared by the informants, copy thereof was supplied to the apprehended person.
Thereafter tempo & Eco sports vehicle was also seized & seizure list in respect of the same was also prepared & copy where of was also supplied to the apprehended person. Thereafter informant proceeded for verification of involvement of the petitioner in the crime & reached at Hotel Subhadra Palace & apprehended the Confessed petitioner there who confessed his terms with Dilip Kumar Kushwaha & in the same manner apprehended the manager of Hotel Centre Park also seized the DVR of Hotel Center Park & released the three females on P/R Bond.
4/6
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegation levelled in the FIR is considered to be correct then at best the petitioner can only be held responsible for providing the Hotel space, but he was not directly involved in committing of the offence. The petitioner is simply a Manager of Hotel Subhadra Palace and it is on this account that he has been named in the FIR. He further submits that he has no direct involvement in the crime /offence alleged to have been committed. He further submits that he is in custody since 11.06.2025. He also submits that no specific allegation of any overtact has been alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner being man of means will not abscond and even if released on bail he will not tamper with the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that he should be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.
7. Considering the fact that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the FIR of being involved in the illegal/immoral trade and that only reason why the petitioner has been named in the FIR, is that he happens to be the Manager of the Hotel. Under these circumstances, this Court is inclined to
5/6 grant bail to the petitioner.
8. The petitioner above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No.301 of 2025 , subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates without substantial reason or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the
6/6 petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
9. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) Prakash Narayan U T