Ranjit Ramesh Halder v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur

2025:BHC-NAG:14290 1 31.ba.1217.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1217/2025 Ranjit Ramesh Halder and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Mir Rizwan A,i, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. N. R. Rode, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI,J.

DATED : 15/12/2025.

.

Heard.

2.

The applicants are arrested in Crime No.482/2025 registered with Police Station, Ranapratap Nagar, District Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 143(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

3.

It is the case of the prosecution that after receiving information about illegal prostitution occurring under the garb of Spa and Saloon, the raid was conducted. Applicant No.1 is Manager of the said Spa and applicant No.2 is one of the employee. Both of them are taken in custody.

4.

The learned Counsel for the applicants has stated that on perusal of the statements of the victims, it do not appear that they were pressurized to do the said work. Both the applicants are employees there. They were not aware about the activity inside the Spa under the name of massage. Though there is an earlier incident against the applicant No.1, there is no antecedents against the applicant No.2. Since the victims were doing it willingly, there is no question of coercion. As the charge-sheet is

2 31.ba.1217.25 already filed, the custody of these applicants is not required. Hence, prayed to release the applicants on bail. 5.

Learned A.P.P. opposed the application stating that the applicants are supplying the customers. Victims and the applicants are getting money. The applicant No.1 is the Manager and the antecedent is there. The owner of the Spa and Saloon is absconding though the charge-sheet is filed. Considering the role played by both of the applicants, prayed to reject the application. 6.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

7.

Under the name of Spa and Saloon the prostitution is going on. Applicant No.1 was present in Spa when the raid was conducted. The girls were found along with the customers. The girls have given the statement that they received the money if they established the physical relations with the customers along with massage. 8.

Considering the statements made by the victims that, they are doing it willingly, however, they are doing the same under the name of Spa, and illegal activity is going on with the help of these applicants. Considering the role played by these applicants for the said prostitution, this is not a case to release the applicant on bail. 9.

Hence, the application is rejected.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) RGurnule