Bombay High Court Rules In Favor Of Waiter, Citing Lack of Evidence

An FIR against a Mumbai waiter who was detained during a police search on
suspicion of profanity at a dance bar in 2016 was annulled by the Bombay High Court on Thursday.

According to the Court, the petitioner waiter was merely fulfilling his job description, which called for serving food and beverages to customers.

The prosecution's argument was that on April 14, 2016, the police were
notified by someone that ladies who went by the name of "Bar Girls" were
dancing and making lewd gestures at the New Park Side Bar and Restaurant.
The girls were discovered to be making suggestive gestures, attempting to
engage in physical contact with patrons, and dancing to amuse them while
they were seated in the restaurant during the police raid.

The prosecution further stated that eleven patrons as well as the owners of the pub, nine stewards/waiters, a manager, and another manager-cum cashier were all taken into custody by the police. Serving patrons in the bar/restaurant was the petitioner's Job as a waiter.

Following their arrest, each accused person was charged under the applicable sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). But after reviewing the evidence provided by the prosecution, the bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Neela Gokhale noted that reading the bare section's provisions shows that the accused must engage in any obscene act in a public setting or sing, recite, or utter any obscene song in or near a public setting in order to be found guilty of the IPC offences.

"There is nothing in the record that suggests the petitioner is engaging in
pornographic behaviour or singing or speaking indecent lyrics.” The bench
stated that there is no accusation against the petitioner that he participated in any of the lewd actions or encouraged them while working as a server in the aforementioned restaurant.

The bench went on to say that the policeman's and other witnesses' general
claims that the servers were pushing the female artists to dance in an explicit
and provocative way were all that existed.

"The petitioner is not found to have been acting in a way that clearly demonstrates how the word "Encouraging" would appear on the outside," the Court declared.

Author:
Aarya Kadam