IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. ______ OF 2024

APPLICANT: RAKESH CHAWLA

VERSUS

NON-APPLICANT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

INDEX
[Link]. Description Ann. Date Page No.
No.
1. Synopsis
2. Bail Application u/s. 439 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
3. List of Annexures
i. A True Copy of the F.I.R I 13.02.2024
ii. A True Copy of the Rental II 01.06.2020
Agreement dated 01.06.2020.
iii. A True Copy of the Rental III 01.01.2024
Agreement dated 01.01.2024.
iv. A True Copy of the Order passed by IV 02.04.2024
the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature
at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur,
thereby granting bail to Ashish
Chawla (son of the Applicant)
v. A True Copy of the Application filed V 28.02.2024
before the Learned District Judge – 3
and Addl. Sessions Judge, seeking
 regular bail.
A true Copy of the Order passed by VI 13.03.2024
the Learned District Judge – 3 and
Addl. Sessions Judge, rejecting the
Bail Application.

Place: COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT

Date: (NAME)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
 CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. ______ OF 2024

APPLICANT: RAKESH CHAWLA

VERSUS

NON-APPLICANT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

SYNOPSIS
Date Chronological Events
 Applicant is a businessman by profession.
 Owner of the property where the alleged crime had taken
place.
 Aged about 56 years, is a heart patient currently suffering
from other medical conditions.
 No criminal antecedents.
 That the alleged premises where the entire incident had
taken place i.e., hotel Krishna Kunj situated Plot No.16,
Shreeji automobile, near railway crossing is owned by the
Applicant herein, and the same was rented out by him to
accused No.3 Gajanan Sonone vide an Agreement
executed in the year 2020, for the purpose of running a
business.
 Since then, the accused No.3 Gajanan Sonone was running
a hotel business there, and was solely managing the daily
operations pertaining to the said business.
12.02.2024 Crime Branch unit 4, Nagpur, received a secret information
that a person named Alok is running a prostitution business,
and is providing a place for the same. furthermore, he has been
inducing minor girls into prostitution by offering them money.
 That on the basis of the said information a raid was conducted
by the Crime Branch unit 4, Nagpur at the alleged premises
i.e., hotel “Krishna Kunj”, by sending a bogus customer there,
who was later found with a minor girl. Upon enquiring with
the minor girl, she had stated that she was brought to the said
hotel by accused No.1 Alok Raikwar.
At the behest of Police Constable Atul Chate, Crime Branch
unit 4, Nagpur, an F.I.R. bearing No. 109/2024 was registered
at Police Station Beltarodi, Nagpur, against accused No.1 Alok
Raikwar, accused no. 2 Dhiraj Khule and accused no. 3
Gajanan Sonone under sections 370, 370(1) r/w Section 34
IPC, Sections 3,4,5,7 of the PITA Act, 1956 and Sections
4,8,12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
26.02.2024 Applicant was arrested by the Crime Branch Unit 4, Nagpur
i.e., the Non-Applicant, merely on the ground that he is the
owner of the premises i.e., the hotel where the alleged incident
had taken place.
28.02.2024 Criminal Bail Application No. 608/2024 filed before the
Learned District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur,
seeking regular bail.
01.03.2024 A reply was filed by the Non-Applicant.
13.03.2024 Order passed by the Learned District Judge-3 and Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nagpur, rejecting the Application filed by the
Applicant seeking regular bail.

ACTS AND STATUTES

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
3. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
GROUNDS TO BE URGED/ARGUED
1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail u/s. 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973?
2. Whether curtailment of life and liberty of the Applicant is warranted in the instant
case?
3. Whether the Applicant’s arrest without any evidence so as so substantiate his
involvement in the present case, merely based on assumption stands in violation
of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950?

CITATION
That the same shall be supplied during the course of arguments.

Place: COUNSEL FOR

APPLICANT
Date: (Arjun Vinod Bobde)
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (B.A.) NO. ______ OF 2024

In the matter of regular bail for offences punishable under sections 370, 370(1)
R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of the Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sections 4, 8, 12 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

APPLICANT: 1. Rakesh s/o. Balbirsingh Chawla

Age: 59 years
Occupation: Business
R/o. Plot No. 173, Chawla Palace,
Vivekanand Nagar, Nagpur
(Presently in Central Jail, Nagpur)

VERSUS

NON-APPLICANT: 1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Through its Police Station Officer,
P.S. – Beltarodi, Nagpur.
2. XYZ
(Victim in Crime No. 109/2024)

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF RAKESH CHAWLA S/O BALBIRSINGH

CHAWLA, UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973, SEEKING BAIL.

1. That the present Application under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) is being filed by the Applicant herein
 seeking bail in F.I.R. dated 13.02.2024, bearing No.109 of 2024, registered at P.S. –
Beltarodi, under sections 370, 370(1) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), Sections 3,4,5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “PITA”) and Sections 4, 8, 12 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to
as “POCSO”). It is pertinent to state that although, the Applicant was not arrayed
as an accused in the said F.I.R, but still, was later implicated and arrested in the
alleged crime, solely based on an assumption that the Applicant being the owner of
the hotel was involved in the alleged incident / crime.

2. That the Applicant herein is a national and law-abiding citizen of India and is
entitled to the constitutional rights as well as all the fundamental rights enshrined
under Part - III of the Constitution of India.

3. That it is apposite to place certain facts before this Hon’ble Court for the judicious
disposal of the instant application.

BRIEF FACTS

i. That the Applicant being a businessman, has earned a certain reputation and
goodwill in the market as well as the society, and in fact has no criminal
antecedents attached to his person.

ii. That it is the story of the prosecution that on 12.02.2024, the Crime Branch
Unit 4, Nagpur had received a secret information that a person, named Alok
Raikwar, was running a prostitution racket by providing a place, and was even
inducing and bringing minor girls to the said place by offering them money.

iii. That subsequently, on the basis of the said information, a raid was conducted
by the Crime Branch Unit 4, Nagpur at the alleged place, and thereafter on
13.02.2024, at the behest of the Police Constable Atul Chate, Crime Branch
 Unit 4, Nagpur, an F.I.R bearing Crime No. 109 of 2024 was registered at
Police Sation Beltarodi, Nagpur, against accused No.1 Alok Raikwar, accused
No.2 Dhiraj Khule and accused No.3 Gajanan Sonone, under sections 370,
370(1) r/w Section 34 IPC, Sections 3,4,5 and 7 of PITA and Sections 4, 8, 12
of the POCSO Act, 2012.
A True Copy of the F.I.R dated 13.02.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE – I.

iv. That as per the prosecution, the information received by the Crime Branch Unit
4, Nagpur, accused No.1 Alok Raikwar was running the said prostitution racket
in connivance with the other accused persons at a hotel, named Krishna Kunj,
situated at Plot No.16, Shreeji automobile, near railway crossing (hereinafter
referred to as “hotel”), which is owned by the Applicant herein.

v. That in order to conduct a raid at the alleged premises i.e., the hotel, the Crime
Branch Unit 4, Nagpur had sent a bogus customer, and subsequently, upon
conducting the raid, the bogus customer was found with a minor girl, aged
about 16 years, in the room no.202 of the said hotel. Thereafter, upon
questioning the minor girl regarding the same, she stated that she had been
brought to the hotel by accused No.1 Alok Raikwar for the purpose of carrying
out his illegal business of prostitution.

vi. That thereafter, in view of the F.I.R dated 13.02.2024, the Applicant herein was
arrested, on 26.02.2024, by the Non-Applicant, in relation to Crime No. 109 of
2024, merely on the basis of an assumption that the Applicant had an
involvement in the alleged crime, being the owner of the hotel.

vii. That the Applicant has approached the Hon’ble Court invoking its jurisdiction
under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking grant of
bail on the grounds mentioned hereinunder.
 GROUNDS FOR SEEKING BAIL

i. At the outset it is submitted that the Applicant is not arrayed as an accused in

the F.I.R bearing No. 109 of 2024, but was later implicated and arrested on the
sole assumption that since he is the owner of the premises where the alleged
incident had taken place, he is deemed to be involved in the crime.
Furthermore, the Applicant was arrested without any evidence so as to
substantiate his involvement in the alleged crime. It is pertinent to mention that
the Applicant was arrested baselessly, and such an arrest stands in violation of
the legal premise of law, and therefore, the Applicant is entitled to be released
on bail in order to safeguard his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, 1950.

ii. It is vehemently submitted that there are no allegations against the Applicant
per se, in the F.I.R, and he had no direct / indirect involvement in the alleged
incident apart from the fact that he is the owner of the property i.e., the hotel
where the incident had taken place, which in no manner is a reasonable ground
to implicate the Applicant in the present case, as the Applicant had absolutely
no knowledge or no role to play in any alleged crime. It is imperative to
highlight that a mere perusal of the contents of the F.I.R itself makes it evident
that there are absolutely no allegations so as to implicate the Applicant in the
present case.

iii. It is submitted that the Applicant had rented his property situated at Plot No.16,
Shreeji automobile, near railway crossing, named as “Krishna Kunj” to accused
No.3 Gajanan Sonone, vide a Rental Agreement (hereinafter referred to as
“Agreement”) dated 01.06.2020, for the purpose of running a business.
Subsequently, the said premises was used by accused No.3 for the purpose of
running a hotel.
A True Copy of the Rental Agreement dated 01.06.2020 has been annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE – II.
 iv. Thereafter, the said Agreement was renewed by the parties i.e., the Applicant
and accused No.3 Gajanan Sonone, reiterating the same terms and conditions
of the previous Agreement, vide another Agreement dated 01.01.2024.
A True Copy of the Rental Agreement subsequent to the previous Agreement,
dated 01.01.2024 has been annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE –
III.

v. It is pertinent to mention that the Clause 4 of the said Agreement clearly states
that it is the sole responsibility of the Party No.2 i.e., accused No. 3 Gajana
Sonone, to look after and take car of the entire premises, at his own risk, cost
and consequences and that the Applicant herein will not be held accountable for
any loss sustained by the accused No.3 Gajana Sonone. Furthermore, it has
been clearly set out under the Clause 14 of the said Agreement that the said
premises will not be used by accused No.3 Gajana Sonone, or any other person
associated with him, for any kind of illegal activity, immoral purpose or any
other such activity which constitutes breach of law, and in case of any such
breach, the accused No.3 Gajana Sonone will be solely held responsible.

vi. It is pertinent to consider that no evidence has been furnished so far so as to

prove that the Applicant was directly / indirectly involved in running a brothel,
or allowing his property to be used a brothel. It is imperative to highlight that
the entire management of the premises vested with the accused No.3 Gajanan
Sonone, and the Applicant in no manner was concerned with the day-to-day
management or running of the hotel.

vii. It is submitted that there are no allegations that the Applicant has procured,
induced or approached any person for the purpose of prostitution. It is
imperative to state that clearly, no essentials of the offence/s under the Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act have been established so far, against the Applicant.
viii. It is submitted that the only fact that forms a nexus between the Applicant and
the present case is that the Applicant is the owner of the hotel where the alleged
incident had taken place. It is pertinent to mention that merely owning a
property in no manner substantiates that the Applicant was involved in the
illegal activities taking place at said hotel, which was in fact let out to accused
No.3 Gajanan Sonone, for the purpose of running a business, that too in
absence of any evidence to prove it likewise.

ix. It is vehemently submitted that Applicant had no knowledge about such illegal
activities taking place at the alleged premises, in the name of running a
business. Furthermore, the Applicant was never involved, directly or indirectly
in the daily operations of the business, and the same was solely managed and
operated by accused No.3 Gajanan Sonone. It is further submitted that the
Applicant herein was in fact kept in dark for so long with regards to such
illegal activities taking place at his own property, which the Applicant, merely
acting in good faith had lawfully rented to accused No.3 for the purpose of
running a business, with utmost trust and benevolence. It is evident that the
Applicant herein has been falsely implicated and arrested in the present case,
and had no nexus with the alleged offences.

x. It is imperative to highlight that no essentials with regards to offences alleged

under the IPC, PITA and POCSO are established against the Applicant herein
so as to implicate him under the said offences. Therefore, it is evident that the
Applicant has been wrongfully arrested by the Non-Applicant in the instant
case, and is entitled to be released on bail.

xi. It is submitted that the alleged offences under Section 4,8 and 12 of the POCSO
Act, 2012, are not attracted as the same can only be invoked against a
perpetrator committing the act. It is pertinent to state that, let alone his presence
or involvement in the alleged offence, the Applicant was not even aware of all
 such illegal activities happening at his own property, in the name of running a
hotel.

xii. Furthermore, the offences under Sections 370 and 370A are not attracted or
attributable against the Applicant as there are no prima facie allegations against
the Applicant with regards to his involvement in any kind of immoral
trafficking. It is pertinent to consider that all the allegations of the victim
particularly related to the offence of immoral trafficking were against accused
No.1 Alok Raikwar, and the victim had never mentioned the name of the
Applicant. Therefore, it is evident that the Non-Applicant without any
substantial proof or evidence have arrested the Applicant.

xiii. It is pertinent to mention that a person can only be arrested under section 41(1)
(ba) of the CrPC, against whom a credible information regarding commission
of a cognizable offence punishable for a term exceeding seven years has been
received. However, in the instant case no such information was received
against the Applicant. Therefore, his arrest is baseless and illegal in the eyes of
law. In view of the same, the Applicant is entitled to expeditious release on bail
to safeguard his life and personal liberty guaranteed under article 2l of the
Constitution of India.

xiv. It is submitted that no evidence so as to prove Applicant’s involvement in the

alleged case has been furnished so far, and the Applicant was arrested merely
on the assumption of his involvement in the case, being the owner of the hotel.
Therefore, in view of the same, Applicant’s arrest based on an assumption, in
absence of any concrete evidence, is not only baseless and unreasonable, but
also unlawful.

xv. It is submitted that even assuming but not admitting that any offence is made
out, at the most, an offence under Section 3 can be said to be made out against
the Applicant, which is punishable with imprisonment up to five years. In such
 circumstances, it was incumbent upon the investigating agency to have
complied with the mandatory provisions of Sections 4l and 4l-A of the CrPC,
before arresting the Applicant. However, no such notice, as contemplated by
Section 4l-A was served upon the Applicant. The same vitiates the arrest, and
entitles the Applicant to bail. Therefore, in light of the non-compliance of
section 41A notice, it is submitted that the Applicant is entitled to be enlarged
on bail, in accordance with Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation 2022 (10) SCC 51.

xvi. It is pertinent to consider that Ashish Chawla, who is the son of the Applicant
was also implicated in the instant case, and has been granted bail by this
Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 02.04.2024 in Criminal Application (APPA)
No. 487 of 2024. Therefore, considering the same, and on the basis of parity,
the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
A True Copy of the Order dated 02.04.2024, passed by this Hon’ble Court has
been annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE – IV.

xvii. It is submitted that the Applicant is a 59-year-old man, having serious health
problems, and is also a heart patient. It is pertinent to state that the Applicant
requires a proper and regular medical treatment due to the same.

xviii. It is submitted that the personal liberty of an individual is of utmost

importance, which is guaranteed by the Constitution of India. In view of the
facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is highly evident that the
Applicant has no role to play in the alleged crime, and yet he is harassed at the
hands of investigation agency. Furthermore, it is extremely important to
consider that the Applicant's reputation and goodwill as a businessman is at
stake and his incarceration will further damage his reputation thereby directly
affecting his livelihood.
xix. It is submitted that the role of the Applicant in the instant case and in the
alleged crime is vague and no prima facie case has been established against
him. Furthermore, the Applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation
agency and other officials as and when required, and therefore for the said
reasons his custody is not required. The Applicant specifically undertakes to
present himself before concerned authority/s whenever required, and to
diligently remain present in the Court on each date of hearing.

xx. It is submitted that the Applicant further undertakes that he will not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the instant case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any Police Officer / authority.

xxi. It is submitted that the Applicant shall abide by any condition that this Hon’ble
Court may deem appropriate for enlarging the Applicant on bail. It is further
submitted that the Applicant has clean antecedents with no prior history of any
criminal charges / cases against him.

4. That the Applicant had filed a Criminal Bail Application No. 608 of 2024 on
28.02.2024, before the Learned District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge,
Nagpur, seeking regular bail.
A True Copy of the said Application dated 28.02.2024, is annexed herewith and
market as ANNEXURE – V.

5. That the said Criminal Bail Application No. 608 of 2024 was rejected by the
Learned District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide its order dated
13.03.2024.
A True Copy of the Order passed by the Learned District Judge-3 and Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nagpur, is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE –
VI.
 6. That being aggrieved by the same, the Applicant has filed the instant
Application. Chargesheet in the instant case it yet to be filed.

7. That the present application is bonafide and in the interest of justice. Grave
prejudice would be caused to the Applicant in case the present application is
not allowed.

PRAYER

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to –

i. Allow the Application and enlarge the Applicant on regular bail in Crime
No.109 of 2024 for the offences punishable under sections 370, 370(1) r/w
Section 34 IPC, Sections3,4,5,7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,
1956 and sections 4,8, 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, registered at P.S.
Beltarodi, Nagpur, on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit in the interest of justice; and/or

ii. during the pendency of the instant Application, release the Applicant on
interim bail; and/or

iii. Pass any other order in favour of the Applicant that this Hon’ble court may
deem fit in the interest of justice.
Place: COUNSEL FOR
APPLICANT
Date: (Arjun Vinod Bobde)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. ______ OF 2024

APPLICANT: RAKESH CHAWLA

VERSUS

NON-APPLICANT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

LIST OF ANNEXURES
[Link] Description Ann. No. Date Page No.
.
1. A True Copy of the F.I.R I 13.02.2024
2. A True Copy of the Rental II 01.06.2020
Agreement dated 01.06.2020.
3. A True Copy of the Rental III 01.01.2024
Agreement dated 01.01.2024.
4. A True Copy of the Order IV 02.04.2024
passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Judicature at Bombay,
 Nagpur Bench, Nagpur,
thereby granting bail to Ashish
Chawla (son of the Applicant)
5. A True Copy of the V 28.02.2024
Application filed before the
Learned District Judge – 3 and
Addl. Sessions Judge, seeking
regular bail.
6. A true Copy of the Order VI 13.03.2024
passed by the Learned District
Judge – 3 and Addl. Sessions
Judge, rejecting the Bail
Application.