Mumbai, Maharashtra – July 14, 2022 – A Mumbai Special NDPS Court has granted bail to Fahed Chand Shaikh, accused of running a prostitution racket under the guise of a massage parlor. The court, presided over by Special Judge V.V. Patil, granted bail citing a lack of prima facie evidence connecting Shaikh to the alleged offenses.

Fahed Chand Shaikh (26) was arrested on April 4, 2022, in connection with C.R. No. 354/2022, registered at Kandivali Police Station. He was charged under sections 370 A(2) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (PITA), and sections 8(c), 20, and 22(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Details of the Raid and Allegations:

According to the prosecution, on June 11, 2022, police received a tip-off about prostitution activities at “D2 Uko Spa.” A decoy customer and panchas were arranged, and a raid was conducted. During the raid, co-accused Sohel Dhanani, the Spa’s manager, was apprehended. A woman was found with the decoy customer in a cabin. Dhanani was found in possession of 0.81 grams of MD and 1.05 grams of Ganja. Shaikh, allegedly the owner of the Spa, and another accused, Dipika Ramesh Tal, were named as wanted accused in the FIR.

Arguments Presented During the Bail Hearing:

Shaikh’s defense, led by advocate Mr. Madan Gupta, argued that his client was falsely implicated. He was not present at the Spa during the raid and had not interacted with the decoy customer. They emphasized that the victim, a major, had fled from police custody and denied involvement in prostitution during an inquiry under Section 17 of the PITA Act before the Magistrate. The defense also presented a leave and license agreement to demonstrate that Shaikh was not the owner of the Spa.

The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Mr. Rajput, opposed the bail application, arguing that Shaikh was the owner of the Spa and was involved in supplying women for prostitution with the help of co-accused Dhanani and Tal. They expressed concerns about Shaikh tampering with witnesses and absconding if granted bail.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Judge Patil, after reviewing the case records and hearing both sides, noted the absence of any material evidence linking Shaikh to the alleged offenses.

“Perusal of documents reveal that police raided the Spa for immoral trafficking of women. Present applicant was allegedly owner of the said Spa. Applicant has denied that he was owner of the Spa. Prosecution has not produced on record any document in support of its claim that the present applicant was owner of the Spa,” Judge Patil stated in the order.

The court also highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the prosecution’s claim that Shaikh was involved in supplying women for prostitution.

“Prosecution claimed that applicant used to supply girls for prostitution under the name of massage with the help of accused no.1 Sohel and one Deepika Tal. However, at this stage, no material is placed on record by the prosecution in support of its contention. Therefore, prima-facie there is no evidence on record regarding the same,” Judge Patil noted.

The court emphasized that nothing was recovered from Shaikh, and there were no criminal antecedents against him. Considering his residency in Mumbai and willingness to cooperate with the investigation, the court found Shaikh entitled to bail.

“There are no criminal antecedents to the discredit of the applicant. The applicant is resident of Mumbai and there are no chances of his absconding or fleeing from justice. Applicant is ready to undertake any condition imposed by the Court and ready to co-operate investigating machinery. Hence I hold that applicant is entitled to grant of bail subject to imposing certain terms and conditions,” Judge Patil stated.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted bail to Shaikh on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount, subject to the following conditions:

• He must attend Kandivali Police Station every Monday between 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM until the filing of the charge sheet.
• He and his sureties must provide their mobile numbers and correct residential addresses, along with the names, mobile numbers, and addresses of two relatives.
• He must provide proof of identity and residence at the time of executing the bail bond.
• He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence and must cooperate in the early disposal of the trial.
• He must not commit similar offenses while on bail.

Implications of the Decision:

This decision underscores the court’s reliance on concrete evidence and the presumption of innocence. It highlights the importance of the prosecution providing substantial proof to support its claims, especially in cases involving serious charges like human trafficking and drug possession. The ruling also emphasizes the court’s commitment to upholding the rights of the accused while ensuring cooperation with the investigation and judicial process.