Dismissed

Ramnik Dungar Patel v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Jul 2019BA/1415/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court rejected the bail application of Ramnik Dungar Patel in a case involving offences under IPC Sections 366A, 370, 376 and PITA Act, citing risks of witness intimidation and the nature of allegations.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail rejected; trial expedited.

What the court decided

Ramnik Dungar Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

28-ba.1415.2019.doc

1/4

nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1415 OF 2019

¶6

Ramnik Dungar Patel ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶7

Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b Mr.Abhishek Yende, for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr.V.V.Gangurde, A.P.P for the Respondent - State.

¶9

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶10

DATE : 9^th JULY, 2019

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

By this application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on

¶14

bail in connection with C.R.No.319 of 2018 registered with the Worli Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 370, 370(A), 376 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code; under Sections

¶15

3, 4, 5 and 7(A)(B) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA Act)

¶16

28-ba.1415.2019.doc

¶17

2/4

¶18

and under Sections 3, 5 and 9 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

¶19

Perused the papers. According to the prosecution, on 1^st December, 2018, information was received that prostitution activities were going on in Room No.107, I-Wing, Co-operative Housing Society, Pandurang Budkar Road, Worli, Mumbai, in the premises of the applicant. Pursuant to the said information, raid was conducted and 3 ladies were rescued, one out of whom was a minor, aged 17 years. In the raid that was conducted, a fake customer was asked to visit the premises; when the fake customer visited the premises, the applicant accepted Rs.5,000/- from the said fake customer; thereafter the girl was provided, pursuant to which the raiding party entered the premises. The fake customer was found with the girl in the bedroom. The statement of the rescued girl, aged 17 years reveals that seven months prior to the date of the incident, somebody asked her, whether she would like to work in a massage parlour and gave her the number of the applicant. The minor girl has stated that when she called on the said mobile number given to her, the person (applicant) told her that he was Patel Sir and that she would get good money, if she worked in a

¶20

28-ba.1415.2019.doc

¶21

3/4

¶22

massage parlour and asked her to come to Gopalnagar; that when she went to the applicant's house, the applicant took her to a room, touched her inappropriately and thereafter had forcible sexual intercourse with her and thereafter told her that she would have to do this kind of work for the clients, and accordingly paid her Rs.1,000/-. Thereafter, the minor girl was made to engage in prostitution activities.

¶23

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant states that the document on page 54, i.e. Aadhar Card shows the date of birth of the minor girl as 17^th May, 2001, whereas in the document which is at page 321 of the application, the date of birth is shown as 22^nd January, 2001.

¶24

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the allegations of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, as against the applicant are about seven months prior to the date of raid, when she was a minor. It is also pertinent to note, that the applicant was conducting prostitution activities by showing the place, as an office of a Finance Company, when infact no such office existed. If the applicant is enlarged on bail, the possibility of the applicant threatening the the witnesses, cannot be ruled out.

¶25

28-ba.1415.2019.doc

¶26

4/4

¶27

Having regard to the aforesaid, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶28

Hence, the application for bail is rejected and disposed of as such. However, having regard to the age of the applicant, i.e. 70 years, the trial of the applicant is expedited.

¶29

It is made clear, that the observations made herein are prima

¶30

facie for deciding the aforesaid application, and the learned Judge shall decide the case on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶31

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Ramnik Dungar Patel v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ramnik Dungar Patel v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Baban Kale@Pintya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Surekha Kakad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imran Yunus Namakwala Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dipak Jagijivandas Soni and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shubham Kiran Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kifayetullah Ahmedullah Farooqui Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.