In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against a waiter from a Mumbai dance bar, who was arrested during a police raid in 2016 amid allegations of obscenity. The court found that the petitioner was merely fulfilling his duties of serving food and drinks to customers, rather than engaging in any inappropriate behavior.
The case dates back to April 14, 2016, when police received information about women, referred to as bar girls, dancing at the New Park Side Bar and Restaurant while allegedly making obscene gestures. During the raid, law enforcement officials reported that the women were entertaining patrons and attempting to make physical contact with them. The police arrested the bar’s owners, a manager, a cashier, nine waiters, and eleven customers based on the perceived obscenity.
The petitioner, one of the waiters, was charged under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, Justices A.S. Gadkari and Neela Gokhale, reviewing the prosecution’s evidence, determined that the waiter had not engaged in any actions that would qualify as obscene under the law. The judges highlighted that for the IPC offenses to apply, there must be proof that the accused participated in an obscene act or uttered any obscene song in a public place.
The bench noted, “There is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner is either doing any obscene act or singing or uttering any obscene song.” The justices pointed out that the only accusations against the waiter stemmed from vague statements by police and witnesses, who claimed the waiters were encouraging the performers to act provocatively. However, the court emphasized that the petitioner did not display any conduct that would suggest he was explicitly encouraging such behavior.
In its conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the charges against him. This ruling not only clears the waiter of the accusations but also underscores the importance of concrete evidence in obscenity-related cases. The decision reflects the court’s commitment to ensuring that individuals are not unjustly prosecuted based on generalizations or unsubstantiated claims.
