High Court Rules: Mere Presence in a Dance Bar Is Not a Crime

The Bombay High Court has delivered an important ruling that clearly defines the limits of criminal liability under the Maharashtra Obscene Dance Act and the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that simply being present at a dance bar does not automatically make a customer a criminal offender.

This judgment significantly reinforces legal safeguards against arbitrary arrests and wrongful criminal prosecution in cases involving dance bar raids.

---

Background of the Case

During a police raid conducted on the night of May 4–5, 2024, at Surabhi Palace Bar and Restaurant in Chembur, Mumbai, a total of 11 individuals were detained. These included the bar manager, orchestra artists, women dancers, and multiple customers.

The police filed charges alleging that women were performing obscene dances in violation of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act, 2016. A customer was also booked under:

• Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Disobedience of public order

• Provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working Therein) Act, 2016

According to the FIR, the customer had allegedly “encouraged” the dancers and thereby abetted the commission of offences.

---

Arguments of the Accused

The accused customer moved to the Bombay High Court challenging the charge sheet. He argued:

• That even if the FIR was taken at face value, no material existed to show he had instigated or abetted any illegal activity.

• His counsel contended that merely sitting inside a bar where dancing is taking place is not an offence.

• No evidence indicated that he violated any public order under Section 188 IPC.

• The allegations of “encouragement” were vague and unsupported by facts.

---

Prosecution's Stand

The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, stating:

• The FIR indicated that the applicant encouraged the dancers.

• At the stage of framing charges, courts should not discard such allegations.

• His presence in the establishment during alleged obscene performances pointed towards abetment.

---

High Court’s Findings

Justice N.J. Jamadar of the Bombay High Court dismissed the prosecution's case, making the following key observations:

1. No Evidence of Overt Act or Instigation

The Court found that:

• There was no material showing the customer intentionally aided the dancers.

• No conspiracy, instigation, or active participation was proved.

• The panchanama only recorded the applicant’s presence, not any unlawful act.

2. Mere Presence Cannot Be Criminalised

The Court held:

“Mere presence in an establishment where a dance performance is rendered would not constitute disobedience of lawful orders or abetment.”

Thus, being present at a dance bar, without evidence of active involvement in illegal activity, cannot attract criminal charges.

3. Abuse of Process of Law

Continuing the prosecution without any prima facie case would amount to:

• Misuse of criminal procedure

• Harassment of the accused

• Violation of principles of fairness

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the charge sheet.

---

Statutes Involved

1. Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code

Disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant.
Requires proof of:

• Existence of a valid order

• Knowledge of the order

• Intentional disobedience

• Likelihood of causing obstruction, injury, or annoyance

In this case, none were proven.

2. Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working Therein) Act, 2016

Key provisions relevant to this case:

• Prohibition of obscene dance

• Penalties for those organizing, allowing, or participating in obscene performances

• Prohibition on showering money on dancers

However, the accused was not alleged to have thrown money, touched, instigated, or directed performers.

3. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Relevant as to:

• Framing of charges

• Quashing under Section 482
  The Court exercised inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.

---

Relevant Judicial Precedents

1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)

Established categories where FIR can be quashed, including:

• When allegations are absurd or inherently improbable

• When no prima facie case is made

The present case fits within these principles.

2. Priya Patel v. State of MP (2006)

Held that abetment requires clear intention and active participation.
Mere presence does not constitute abetment.

3. Bombay HC and SC rulings on dance bar laws

Several judgments interpret "obscenity" narrowly and safeguard performers' rights:

• Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association v. State of Maharashtra (2019)
  Supreme Court struck down overly restrictive conditions on dance bars, emphasising constitutional freedoms.

The present ruling aligns with this jurisprudence.

---

Why This Judgment Matters

1. Prevents Criminalising Innocent Presence

The ruling ensures that customers who are present in a bar during a raid are not automatically treated as offenders.

2. Protects Due Process

Police cannot rely on vague allegations of “encouragement” without concrete evidence.

3. Limits Misuse of Obscene Dance Act

The Act is often invoked widely; the Court reaffirms the need for specific evidence.

4. Strengthens Judicial Oversight

The High Court’s intervention highlights that criminal law must not be used to target individuals without cause.

---

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision draws a clear boundary between actual participation in wrongdoing and mere presence at the scene. In the absence of any act of instigation, conspiracy, or active involvement, a customer in a dance bar cannot be prosecuted simply because a raid occurred.

The ruling is a significant reaffirmation of fundamental principles of criminal law:

• presumption of innocence,

• requirement of clear evidence, and

• prevention of harassment through unfounded prosecutions.

It reinforces the judiciary’s duty to ensure that criminal law is applied fairly, proportionately, and within constitutional limits.

---