Allowed

Deepak Agarwal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Jul 2020B.A./3574/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to multiple petitioners charged under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The court observed that mere presence in a hotel does not establish involvement in prostitution and that the definition of a brothel requires more than a single woman, thus quashing the applicability of the charges against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each.

Deepak Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3694 of 2020

¶2

------- Dhananjay Kumar Singh … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party With B.A. No. 3403 of 2020 ------- Rajeev Singh Dugal … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party With B.A. No. 3404 of 2020 ------- Rajesh Kumar Megotia @ Laddu Megotia … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party With B.A. No. 3531 of 2020 ------- Sharad Poddar … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party With B.A. No. 3532 of 2020 ------- Raj Kumar Agarwal @ Raju Bhalotia … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party With B.A. No. 3537 of 2020 ------- Rahul Kumar Agrawal … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party With B.A. No. 3574 of 2020 ------- Deepak Agarwal … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Pradipto Mitra, Advocate (In B.A. No. 3694 of 2020) Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (In B.A. No. 3403 of 2020)

¶3

-2-

¶4

Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate (In B.A. No. 3404 of 2020 & B.A. No. 3532 of 2020) Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate (In B.A. No. 3531 of 2020 & B.A. No. 3537 of 2020) Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate (In B.A. No. 3574 of 2020)

¶5

For the State

¶6

: Mr. Birendra Burman, Mrs. Vipul Divya, Md. Azeemuddin, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. A.K. Pandey, Mr. Rakesh Kumar No. 2, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.s

¶7

03/06.07.2020 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner in B.A. No. 3403 of 2020, Mr. Pradipto Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner in B.A. No. 3694 of 2020, Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in B.A. No. 3404 of 2020 and B.A. No. 3532 of 2020, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in B.A. No. 3531 of 2020 and B.A. No. 3537 of 2020 and Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in B.A. No. 3574 of 2020 as well as Mr. Birendra Burman, Mrs. Vipul Divya, Md. Azeemuddin, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. A.K. Pandey, Mr. Rakesh Kumar No. 2, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.Ps. appearing in their respective cases for the State.

¶8

2. In all these applications the petitioners have prayed for grant of bail as they are in custody in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 88 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

¶9

3. The prosecution story in brief is that during investigation of Bistupur P.S. Case No. 87 of 2020 the rooms of Hotel Alcor were inspected through CCTV Footage. It was detected that Sharad Poddar, (B.A. No. 3531 of 2020) was a regular visitor to the Hotel. The Manager of the Hotel Dhananjay Kumar Singh (B.A. No. 3694 of 2020) had disclosed that Sharad Poddar had kept one Aishwarya Tarak Singh in Room No. 402 since 23.03.2020 and from

¶10

-3-

¶11

the CCTV Footage it appeared that Sharad Poddar used to go to the Hotel everyday for a few hours and then leave. Accordingly, Room No. 402 was inspected wherein Aishwarya Tarak Singh was found occupying the said room. She had disclosed that she had a relationship with co-accused Sharad Poddar since the last six months and she was made to stay in the hotel since 23.03.2020 and the entire bills of the Hotel were being paid by Sharad Poddar. She had also disclosed that Rahul Kumar Agrawal (B.A. No. 3537 of 2020) who was a friend of Sharad Poddar used to visit her in the Hotel as well as in Kolkata along with Sharad Poddar. On investigation of the WhatsApp messages in the mobile of Aishwarya Tarak Singh images of currency notes of Rs. 10/-, Rs. 50/- and Rs. 100/denomination were found along with one image of her finger wearing a ring in which it was written 1 Kg. and 2 Kg. On interrogation it was disclosed that 1. Kg. meant Rs. 1,00,000/- and 2 Kg. meant Rs. 2,00,000/- and the picture of the finger wearing a ring was found to be that of Aishwarya Tarak Singh.

¶12

It has been alleged that through the code language Sharad Poddar used to send money to Aishwarya Tarak Singh through his staffs. It was concluded that Sharad Poddar had kept Aishwarya Tarak Singh in Hotel Alcor where he had been establishing physical relationship for the past one month and the involvement of Rahul Kumar Agrawal, Dhananjay Kumar Singh and Rajeev Singh Dugal (B.A. No. 3403 of 2020) cannot be ruled out.

¶13

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner in B.A. No. 3403 of 2020 (Rajeev Singh Dugal versus The State of Jharkhand) has initiated the arguments by stating that there is no allegation so far as the said petitioner is concerned that he had visited the lady. While referring to the First Information Report instituted being

¶14

-4-

¶15

Bistupur P.S. Case No. 87 of 2020, Mr. Sinha, submits that the same was for lockdown violation and the petitioner is already on bail in the said case. He submits that there is nothing on record which would indicate that the petitioner had benefited on account of the presence of the lady in the Hotel. Learned counsel submits that since a single lady was present in the Hotel room the same cannot be termed to be a “brothel” within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). Learned counsel adds that Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act will not be applicable to the petitioner. He has further stated that the lady namely Aishwarya Tarak Singh had entered into the Hotel during lockdown on 25.04.2020 and allowing her to travel from Kolkata to Jamshedpur by road without any hindrance in fact highlights the latches on the part of the District Administration. Mr. Sinha, has further tried to convince the Court by stating that Aishwarya Tarak singh has been granted bail by the learned court below. He submits that the Hotel concerned has now been sealed and that the petitioner is in custody since 27.04.2020.

¶16

5. Mr. Pradipto Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in B.A. No. 3694 of 2020 (Dhananjay Kumar Singh versus The State of Jharkhand) apart from adopting the argument advanced by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, submits that the First Information Report is purely speculative and not based on any concrete evidence. He submits that Aishwarya Tarak Singh was knowing Sharad Poddar since long. Mr. Mitra, adds while referring to the bail order of Aishwarya Tarak Singh that it has been observed that nothing has come in course of investigation with respect to her role including others in prostitution.

¶17

6. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in B.A. No. 3404 of 2020 (Rajesh Kumar

¶18

-5-

¶19

Megotia @ Laddu Megotia versus The State of Jharkhand) has submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the First Information Report. He has stated that the Act if at all applicable would be with respect to the owner of the Hotel and not to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel adds that the initial First Information Report related to violation of lockdown which was registered on 25.04.2020 in which the petitioner is on Police bail. Mr. Mazumdar, has referred to the Memo of Evidence while stating that the petitioner had come on 25.04.2020 to the Hotel and had left the Hotel after 2-2½ hours and it has been presumed that the petitioner was also involved in an immoral activity. Learned senior counsel while reiterating the argument advanced by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, has also referred to the various provisions of the Act and the in-applicability thereof to the case of the petitioner. The confessional statement of Aishwarya Tarak Singh has been read by him in order to impress upon the Court that Sharad Poddar being her boyfriend at whose instance she had come to Jamshedpur and being very categorical in her disposition the allegation does not touch the petitioner. Mr. Mazumdar, has also referred to the bail order of Aishwarya Tarak Singh which has been brought on record through a supplementary affidavit.

¶20

7. Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also placed the case of the petitioner in B.A. No. 3532 of 2020 (Raj Kumar Agarwal @ Raju Bhalotia versus The State of Jharkhand). This petitioner is also not named in the First Information Report. Learned senior counsel submits that the definition of “brothel” and “prostitution” has to be read conjointly with the confession of Aishwarya Tarak Singh and the observations made in the bail order by the learned court below. While referring to the Memo of Evidence learned senior counsel submits that

¶21

-6-

¶22

mere presence of the petitioner in the Hotel for 2-2½ hours cannot point a needle of suspicion upon the petitioner. It has been stated that though charge-sheet has been submitted but the same is bereft of any evidence.

¶23

8. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in B.A. No. 3531 of 2020 (Sharad Poddar versus The State of Jharkhand) and B.A. No. 3537 of 2020 (Rahul Kumar Agrawal versus The State of Jharkhand) submits that in view of the definitions encompassed in Section 2 (a) and 2 (f) of the Act whether the Hotel can be termed to be a “brothel” and whether the lady can be said to be a prostitute. Learned senior counsel has once again taken this Court through the provisions of Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act while stressing that none of the said provisions are applicable in the present cases. The confessional statement of Aishwarya Tarak Singh has been read by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and he has stated that it is explicit from the said statement that the petitioner Sharad Poddar was her boyfriend and she had acquaintance with him for a considerable length of time. Mr. Ajit Kumar, further submits that the observations made by the learned court below while granting bail to Aishwaraya Tarak Singh assumes considerable significance and virtually demolishes the case of the prosecution. Reference has been made to the case of “ K.S. Puttaswamy versus Union of India ” reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1 509, wherein it has been held that privacy is not lost or surrendered merely because the individual is in a public place. Learned senior counsel submits that the dignity of the petitioners is also an essential feature of privacy and the same has been sought to be subjugated by blatant disregard of the same.

¶24

9. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in B.A. No. 3574 of 2020 (Deepak Agarwal versus

¶25

-7-

¶26

The State of Jharkhand) has stated that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report. Mr. Kashyap, has referred to the Memo of Evidence and has stated that mere presence of the petitioner in the Hotel cannot be a conclusive evidence regarding involvement of the petitioner in immoral activities. It has been submitted that there is no victim and consequently no exploitation and therefore the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Learned senior counsel has also reiterated the submission advanced by the other learned counsels.

¶27

10. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, has put in an addendum that at best it can be a case of lockdown violations. He has indicated that there were several foreign guests staying in the Hotel and house keeping staffs were also present therein.

¶28

11. Learned A.P.Ps. appearing in their respective cases assigned to them have stated that the allegations clearly reveal that a racket of prostitution was going on in Hotel Alcor and each of the petitioners have rightly been prosecuted. It has been stated that some girls had fled away as would be evident from a recital of Bistupur P.S. Case No. 87 of 2020 which indicates that a “brothel” was being run by the Management of the Hotel and the petitioners were the participants in such immoral activities. It has, therefore, been prayed that all the bail applications are liable to be rejected.

¶29

12. The arguments advanced by the respective counsels have been considered and the various documents annexed have been perused.

¶30

13. The petitioner, Dhananjay Kumar Singh in B.A. No. 3694 of 2020 was the Administrative Head of Hotel Alcor while the petitioner Rajeev Singh Dugal in B.A. No. 3403 of 2020 is one of the Directors in SRP Oil Private Ltd., which owned the Hotel. The other petitioners have at

¶31

-8-

¶32

various times visited the Hotel. The petitioners have been alleged to be involved in a prostitution racket being run in Hotel Alcor in their various individual capacities.

¶33

14. All the learned counsels for the petitioners have stated in unison that the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. 15. Section 2 (a) of the Act defines a “brothel” which reads thus:

¶34

“ Section 2 (a) “brothel” includes any house, room, [conveyance] or place or any portion of any house, room, [conveyance] or place, which is used for purposes [of sexual exploitation or abuse] for the gain of another person or for the mutual gain of two or more prostitutes; ”

¶35

16. It means, therefore, that a singular women cannot form a part of a “brothel”. When the raid was conducted by the Police only Aishwarya Tarak Singh was found present in Room No. 402. The pre-cursor to the raid was a raid which was conducted in the same Hotel on 25.04.2020 on the allegation that a party was being arranged in spite of announcement of a lockdown. In the initial raid some persons are said to have fled away including two girls and that was the fulcrum of the case of the prosecution that a “brothel” was being run. In fact the Police has failed to evince any particular evidence regarding the truthfulness or otherwise concerning the presence of two other girls.

¶36

17. “Prostitution” has been defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act which means sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes. There is nothing on record to indicate that there was sexual exploitation of Aishwarya Tarak Singh by the accused for commercial purposes barring certain symbolic messages recovered from the mobile of Aishwarya Tarak Singh which is purely

¶37

-9-

¶38

presumptive in nature. In fact Sections 2 (a) and 2 (f) of the Act formed the genesis of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act and in view of the discussions made above there is an obvious dilution in attracting the said provisions so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶39

18. In the bail application of Aishwarya Tarak Singh (B.P. No. 367 of 2020) the learned Sessions Judge East Singhbhum, at Jamshedpur had observed that there is nothing on record to show that she was operating any racket and nothing has come in the case diary with regard to the role of the lady involving others in the trade of prostitution.

¶40

19. The confessional statement of Aishwarya Tarak Singh reveals her intimate relationship with Sharad Poddar. She was knowing Sharad Poddar for the last 13 months. She had also sought to explain the symbols in her mobile. Her entire necessities were fulfilled by Sharad Poddar. It would thus reveal that Aishwarya Tarak Singh had developed a close acquaintance with Sharad Poddar. If the confessional statement of Aishwarya Tarak Singh and the observations of the learned court below in the bail order of Aishwarya Tarak Singh are considered the same would reveal that the individual companionship between Aishwarya Tarak Singh and Sharad Poddar has been sought to be denigrated by the prosecution. Mere presence in the Hotel as in the case of some of the individual petitioners cannot lead to a speculation about their involvement. Charge-sheet has already been submitted and the petitioners are in custody for the last more than two months.

¶41

20. Consequent to the discussions made herein above, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶42

21. Accordingly, all the petitioners (in B.A. No. 3694 of 2020, B.A. No. 3403 of 2020, B.A. No. 3404 of 2020, B.A.

¶43

-10-

¶44

No. 3531 of 2020, B.A. No. 3532 of 2020, B.A. No. 3537 of 2020 and B.A. No. 3574 of 2020), named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 88 of 2020.

¶45

22. All these applications stand allowed.

¶46

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶47

Alok/-

Deepak Agarwal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Agarwal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Jaisawal Alias Krishna Ranjan Jaisawal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Bahadur Alias Chhote Lal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tikan Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chamru Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Eqbal Ansari Alias Laddu Vs the State of Jharkhand