Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has said that no person can be prosecuted for merely watching women dancing at a bar in an obscene manner.
The high court dismissed the case against a man filed before a local court, observing that the petitioner was not found to have been doing any explicit act to demonstrate an external manifestation of the term ‘encouraging’.
The FIR was also quashed.
The case dates back to February 2016 when Mumbai Police conducted a raid at Sea Princess Bar and Restaurant from where they recovered some objectionable items.
Police also found women, masquerading as waitresses, dancing obscenely and customers throwing currency notes towards them.
Male stewards and waiters were seen collecting the money as customers encouraged the dancing women to make obscene gestures.
The 37-year-old petitioner was one of the customers watching the obscene dance and acts of the women, following which a case was registered at a local police station in Mumbai under Sections 294 (obscene acts and songs) and 114 (abetter present when offence is committed) read with 34 (common intention) of IPC along with a section of Maharashtra Police Act.
Justices AS Gadkari and Neela Gokhale, on going through details of both the sections, 294 and 114, said that to attract the ingredients of these offences, it is necessary that the accused person indulges in doing any obscene act in a public place or singing, reciting or uttering any obscene song in or near a public place.
“There is no material on record to indicate that, the petitioner who is either doing any obscene act or singing or uttering any obscene song. There is only a generic statement pertaining to the customers found in the Bar and Restaurant that they were enjoying the show and ‘encouraging’ the women artistes. The Petitioner is not found to have been doing any explicit act that can demonstrate an external manifestation of the term ‘encouraging’. He was not found to be throwing notes of Indian currency at the dancing women. Furthermore, there is also no material to suggest that, the petitioner was an abettor present when the offence was committed,” the bench observed.
The judges observed that another bench of the high court had earlier held that no one can be prosecuted for merely being present in a bar and restaurant at the relevant time when no specific overt act is attributed to them. This was applicable in this case too, they said.
