Facts of the Case

The petitioners, Satyendra Sahani and his son Amarjeet Sahani, sought anticipatory bail before the Patna High Court in connection with Mehsi P.S. Case No. 65 of 2022, registered under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The prosecution's case was that the petitioners, father and son, were running a brothel under the cover of a family restaurant; on a raid, three women along with customers were apprehended at the premises. Among the defences raised was the assertion that the restaurant had been given on rent to one Harendra Prasad under an agreement dated 31.12.2021, and that the GST registration for the establishment stood in Harendra Prasad's name — a fact offered simply to show the petitioners had no connection to the business, not to raise any question of GST law.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in a case alleging that they were running a brothel under the guise of a family restaurant.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The allegation was false because the restaurant premises had been rented out to Harendra Prasad, in whose name the GST registration for the establishment also stood, showing the petitioners had no connection with the alleged activities.
  • Both petitioners were persons of clean antecedents, and the facts did not disclose a prima facie case against them.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, submitting that the apprehended women and customers, as per the FIR, had named the petitioners as those running the alleged brothel and had described their active participation.

Court Order / Findings

  • Considering the FIR's allegations of active participation by both petitioners in running a brothel under cover of a family restaurant, the Court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail.
  • The rejection turned entirely on the FIR's allegations and the stage of the investigation; the Court recorded no findings on GST registration, ownership of the establishment's GST number, or any other GST-law question.

Important Clarification

This is a bail order in a criminal case under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, and the GST-registration detail was mentioned only in passing as part of the defence's factual narrative. It establishes no principle of GST law, and readers should not draw any tax-law conclusions from it.

Sections Involved

  • Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
  • Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (anticipatory bail)

Decision – In Favour of

Decided against the petitioners; the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected. No GST issue was involved or decided.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
  • Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 54921 of 2022
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha
  • Date of Order: 24 April 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.