Dismissed

Sagar Chandrashekhar Kurzekar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Pso, Ps Werltur Nagpur Rural Tq. and Dist. Nagpur and Antoher

Bombay HC24 Oct 2024BA/792/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought by a hotel owner prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, BNS 2023 and child protection provisions after a raid found a minor girl and incriminating material. Register entries, spot panchanama and witness statements showed prima facie involvement in running prostitution. Bail was rejected.

What did the court decide?

None granted; regular bail application rejected.

Sagar Chandrashekhar Kurzekar Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:12018

¶2

310 ba792.24

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.792 OF 2024 Sagar Chandrashekhar Kurzekar

¶6

..vs..

¶7

State of Maharashtra, through its PSO PS Weltur, Nagpur Rural, Tahsil and District Nagpur and another

¶8

...............................................................………………........................................………………………................................……………
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order
and Registrar's orders

¶9

Shri A.A.Dhawas, Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri N.B.Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for NA No.1/State.
Shri Yash Bage, Advocate Appointed for NA No.2/Victim.
Shri Digvijay Singh and Shri Dhiraj Ailani, Advocates for Intervenor.

¶10

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. CLOSED ON : 21/10/2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 24/10/2024

¶11

By this application, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No.114/2024 registered with the no n-applicant/police station for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and 143 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 4 and 5 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Officers Act, 2012.

¶12

2. The applicant is arrested on 18.7.2024 and since

¶13

.....2/-

¶14

310 ba792.24

¶15

¶16

then he is in jail.

¶17

3.The applicant has been prosecuted as a confidential
information was received at the police station that in order to
gain financial benefits, the applicant is running an illegal brothel
in his hotel namely “U” and “Me”, situated at Mendha. After
confirmation of the receipt of the said information, a raid was
conducted and during the raid, a minor girl was found. While
conducting the raid, four mobile phones; one packet of condom;
guest register, and cash amount of Rs.1830/- came to be seized.
On the basis of the said report, police registered the crime
against the applicant.

¶18

4. Heard learned counsel Shri A.A.Dhawas for the
applicant; learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.B.Jawade
for the State; learned counsel Shri Yash Bage for non-applicant
No.2/victim, and learned counsel Shri Digvijay Singh for
Intervenor.

¶19

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
except the said stray incident, there are no criminal antecedents
against the applicant to show his involvement in running the

¶20

.....3/-

¶21

310 ba792.24

¶22

¶23

prostitution business. He submitted that the victim along with
other co-accused came in the hotel and shown their Aadhar
Cards and obtained a room. Thus, the room was given after
obtaining relevant documents. Even, statement of the victim
nowhere discloses that she was called there for the prostitution.
Now, investigation is completed and chargesheet is filed.
Further incarceration of the applicant is not required. In view of
that, the applicant be released on bail.

¶24

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State,
learned counsel for the victim, and learned counsel for
Intervenor i.e. Freedom Firm submitted that during
investigation, it reveals that a victim minor girl was subjected for
repeated sexual assault. Co-accused Vijay Meshram contacted
her and as she was in need of money, she was asked to do
prostitution. Accordingly, she was brought in the hotel of the
applicant. They submitted that various entries in the hotel
register show that regularly the prostitution business is carried
out and the hotel is used as an illegal brothel. The Aadhar Card
seized was a forged Aadhar Card. Genuineness of the Aadhar
Card was verified and it revealed that by obtaining a forged

¶25

.....4/-

¶26

310 ba792.24

¶27

¶28

Aadhar Card, entry was given to her. Thus, considering
involvement of the applicant in the prostitution business, the
application deserves to be rejected.

¶29

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for

¶30

respective parties and perused investigation papers, it reveals
that the raid was conduced by sending dummy customers in the
said hotel. During investigation, it revealed that on regular
basis, girls were brought for the prostitution purpose. The
entries of registers seized by the investigating agency show
involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. Spot
panchanama shows that incriminating articles like packets of
condoms were found at the counter itself, which is incriminating
circumstance. Statements of various witnesses recorded show
involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. The
statement of the father of the applicant is also on record, which
shows that while giving entry to the victim girl in the hotel,
Aadhar Card was obtained. The original Aadhar Card was
found.

¶31

8. Thus, prima facie involvement of the applicant in the

¶32

.....5/-

¶33

310 ba792.24

¶34

¶35

prostitution reveals from investigation papers.

¶36

9. Admittedly, trafficking humans is a heinous crime

¶37

and crime against humanity resulting in human rights violation.
It also includes trafficking minors.

¶38

10. In the present case, the victim, who was trafficked,
was a minor girl under provisions of the POCSO Act. The act of
the applicant is to be treated with sensitivity considering sixteen-
year-old-girl was used for the prostitution purpose.

¶39

11. Thus, the applicant violated legal provisions and the
minor girl was victimized.

¶40

12. Though it is submitted by learned counsel for the

¶41

applicant that there are no criminal antecedents against the
applicant, entries of various registers in the hotel reveal that on
regular basis, the prostitution business is carried out in the said
hotel.

¶42

13. Thus, considering gravity of the offence, especially,
considering fact that a minor girl was brought for the
prostitution purpose by the co-accused and with the help of the

¶43

.....6/-

¶44

310 ba792.24

¶45

¶46

applicant, she was forced for sexual activities, the same is to be
considered as a serious crime.

¶47

14. Considering a prima facie case against the applicant,

¶48

the application deserves to be rejected and the same is rejected.

¶49

Application stands disposed of.

¶50

 (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶51

!! BrWankhede !!

¶52

...../-

Sagar Chandrashekhar Kurzekar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Pso, Ps Werltur Nagpur Rural Tq. and Dist. Nagpur and Antoher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Chandrashekhar Kurzekar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Pso, Ps Werltur Nagpur Rural Tq. and Dist. Nagpur and Antoher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeshsing S/O Surajsingh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Manapur Nagpur

Yasin Ali S/O Mujjafar Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra through Railway Pso Ps Ner Dist Yavatmal

Jahid Khan @ Monu Javed Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Pachpaoli, Nagpur

Rajesh Gangadhar Vazalwar Vs State of Mah.Thr.Acb Nagpur

Tejrao S/O Kundlik Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Washim Rural Ps, Tq. Risod Dist. Washim and Another

Sau. Shilpa W/O Nilesh Pendharkar and 2 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, Vasant Nagar, Pusad, Tq. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal and Another