Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) Investigation of said FIR was being done by one Police Inspector Shri Tarun Barot and when investigation was in progress, on 15.02.2003, Dy. SP, Crime Branch Shri Vanzara received further secret information that in certain hotels, this immoral trafficking business of prostitution of girls and ladies is being done by some procurers/agents which can be termed as agent or mediator. In relation to this information and to do further procedure under the rules, the services of one lady panch and two male panchas were sought and the raid was carried out by finalising a deal with the procurers mainly with one Shri Nirav Modi. This Nirav Modi- one of the co-accused had agreed to send a girl in Hotel Samir and subsequently a successful raid was carried out at Hotel Samir and during raid, raiding party found one girl from room No. 305 along with bogus customer planted by the raiding party. The girl found from room No. 305 of Hotel Samir was, according to the prosecution, one Shehnaz Munni, w/o Md. Yunus Shaikh. Immediately thereafter, one another raid was carried out at Hotel Avtar Palace located near Raipur Gate, Opp: Mahipatram Ashram. This raid was carried out on the information divulged by Shenaz @ Munni. Certain recoveries were made from Hotel Avtar and from the persons on duty at Hotel Avtar Palace and the things were seized by the officer heading the raiding party under a panchanama. According to the prosecution, this raid was also a successful raid. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nirav Modi disclosed certain facts that he himself and his close acquaintance Shri Amin @ Devang and Aji Christian are in hand in-gloves and they used to book rooms in Hotel Avtar Palace, Hotel Samir and Hotel Taj Residency Umed and with the help of the management of these hotels, they are successfully or say regularly supplying the girls to the customers and visitors of the aforesaid hotels for prostitution. Thus, the FIR is also against the owners or persons in management of all the three hotels. The present petitioner as per say of prosecution being the owner of the Hotel Taj Residency Umed, is made accused and now has been chargesheeted.

4. It is submitted by ld. counsel Mr. Anandjiwala for the petitioner and it is pertinent to note that it is not the case of the prosecution either in the FIR or in the chargesheet that any raid was carried out by sending a bogus customer at Hotel Taj Residency Umed and the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused only because of the reason that statement of Shri Nirav Modi involves him in the activity. This Nirav Modi is undisputedly a co-accused. So, according to ld. counsel Mr. Anandjiwala, there is no legal evidence against the present petitioner and the statement of a co-accused that too before police can not be read as a piece of evidence for any purpose. The police ought not to have even chargesheeted the present petitioner. The statement of Nirav Modi is a statement made in presence of panchas, such statement is made before panchas, it would not become a legal piece of evidence in the eyes of law as it was in presence of police. In the FIR, the case of the prosecution is that Nirav Modi, by joining hands with one Aji Christian, a co-accused, they used to book rooms in these hotels with the help of the management of the hotels. Though a specific information was available to the investigating agency or raiding party, no positive evidence has been collected which can be said to be a proof, prima facie, by sending bogus customer to Hotel Taj Umed in the manner in which it was done in the case of Hotel Samir. According to ld. counsel Mr. Anandjiwala, the prosecution against the present petitioner has political background and there is an element of malafide. It is argued by ld. counsel Mr. Anandjiwala that with an ulterior motive, the present prosecution has been instituted and it is possible to infer that the same is malicious.