Cops to book raided SoBo bar’s guests for ‘indecent behaviour’

Officers Study CCTV Footage To Identify Patrons, Maintain They Threw ‘Tantrums’ Lawyers Demand Changes In Law To ‘Stop Harassment’

Swati Deshpande & Mateen Hafeez | TNN

    As police began studying the CCTV footage of the SoBo lounge bar raided early on Saturday to take action against its guests, the two men booked for allegedly assaulting cops in the raid’s wake filed for anticipatory bail.
 

    The nearly 200 patrons present at LIV lounge bar during the crackdown will be booked under Bombay Police Act’s section 110 for “indecent behaviour”, deputy commissioner of police Ravindra Shisve said on Monday. “The CCTV footage shows the guests misbehaved with the police,” he added.
 

    According to MRA Marg police, they descended on the bar at Kala Ghoda around 2am on Saturday because it was operating beyond the 1.30am deadline. “When we asked the patrons to accompany us to the police station, they threw tantrums. The women guests were accompanied by female cops,” said Shisve. 

“We fined 21 for indecent behaviour while more than 150 fled from the station.”
    The DCP’s version of events was at odds with the accounts of many of the patrons and others.
 

    According to the anticipatory bail plea filed by advocate Archit Jaykar on Monday, there were no women constables for the first 45 minutes of the raid. Jaykar and LIV’s owner Ritik Bhasin have been accused by cops of assaulting police personnel. Their anticipatory bail applications deny the charges, including that they prevented police from doing their duty.
 

    Jaykar, who has been practising law since 2004, says he was “merely representing a few detainees against their illegal detention by police”. His anticipatory bail plea too details Saturday’s events.
 

    It says he was with friends in Worli when, around 2.15am, one of them received a call from his sister. The sister said some male policemen stormed into LIV around 1.45am and forced her as well as her friends into a police van. The vehicle was driven to MRA Marg police station. The friend asked Jaykar for his legal assistance.
 

    The two reached the cop station around 2.45am and found about 200 people in the compound. Jaykar’s plea says 10-15 police officers were standing at the station’s gate to prevent anyone from leaving. The lawyer was allowed to enter since he asked to speak to the senior inspector, but there was “none on duty”. He got no clear answer from the present cops when he questioned the cause for bringing scores of people to the police station; in fact, he was shunted around.

    The evasion, the plea says, prompted Jaykar to question the cause for keeping girls at the station at night. In return, he was told to wait for the DCP. When the DCP did not show up by 3.15am, he asked that women be allowed to leave. Yet again, he was told to wait for the DCP.
 

    By 3.45am, a few of those detained began arguing with the cops and demanded they be freed. When refused, they pushed at the gate and about 15 minutes later walked out. Jaykar’s plea says he left the station around 4.15am. By that time too, the DCP had not arrived but a senior inspector had. Jaykar explained to the inspector the “illegal action”.
 

    Police teams visited the homes of Bhasin and Jaykar but did not find them. “They are evading arrest,” stated Shisve. 

 

 THE CASE SO FAR
SAT, OCT 27
    Throngs of police personnel descended at SoBo lounge bar LIV at 2am because it was open beyond the curfew hour of 1.30am. About 200 people were present at the establishment at the time
    Police did not allow anyone to leave the premises and, according to patrons, gave no reasons for the action. Instead, they herded the guests into waiting police vans  

 The vans were driven to MRA Marg police station 

    Officers later said the guests were taken away because a few of them “misbehaved” with police personnel
    At the police station, the patrons said they were kept waiting for an hour. Soon, chaos ensued. Amid screaming and crying, the guests stormed out of the police station
    Police filed an FIR against lounge bar owner Ritik Bhasin and lawyer Archit Jaykar for allegedly assaulting cops and deterring them from doing duty  

 

MON, OCT 29 Bhasin and Jaykar file for anticipatory bail 

 

 
    ANTICIPATORY  BAIL PLEAS In their separate applications, Ritik Bhasin and Archit Jaykar say they are law-abiding citizens and deny that they assaulted policemen. Jaykar says he was with a group of friends in Worli early on Saturday when one of them received a call from his sister. The sister explained that she was in a police van. On hearing that, they left to help the girls since police had illegally detained people against their will and despite there being no offence. By not giving reasons to people for carting them off to a police station, cops flouted Supreme Court guidelines
 

TOI interactive Throngs of policemen swooped down on a lounge bar in south Mumbai early on Saturday because it was open beyond the curfew hour. Soon after, about 200 guests were dragged to a nearby police station. Is it right to make patrons pay for the faults of bars and other such establishments?
 

Today’s debate: Should guests be hauled to police stations for law violations by pubs?  

 

 

FLEXIBLE ARMS OF THE LAW
The vagueness of some sections of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, is frequently blamed for the harassment of citizens at the hands of men in khaki. The two sections that the police are wont to use, or misuse, are 110 and 102:  

 

SECTION 110 BEHAVING INDECENTLY IN PUBLIC
    No person shall wilfully and indecently expose his person in any street or public place; the person should also not be seen from a street or public place even if it is inside a house or a building. No person can use indecent language or behave indecently or riotously or in a disorderly manner in a street or place of ‘public resort’ or in any police station
 

INTERPRETATION | Any policeman has the power to decide what constitutes ‘indecent exposure’, indecent language and ‘disorderly behaviour’. Police can even book an individual for being ‘indecently dressed’ at home if he or she is visible from a street
Action | Police can make an arrest on the spot. The section is also used at times in cases when cops are argued with. The fine for the offence is 1,200 though an ‘offender’ can be let off with a warning  

SECTION 102 

 

 POSING OBSTRUCTION IN STREET
    No person shall cause obstruction in any street or public place by one of the following ways: leave for any time “longer than necessary” any animal or vehicle that has to be loaded or unloaded; leaving any box, bale or any other thing on the street for an unreasonable length of time; placing anything for sale contrary to rules in or upon any stall, booth or in any other way whatsoever
 

INTERPRETATION | It allows a policeman to judge what is ‘unreasonable’ length of time; the section creates an opportunity for the force to harass hawkers, deliverymen and owners of small shops
Action | An offender can be fined 1,200 or let off with a warning 

 SECTION 129
 

 

PERMISSION OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT AT PLACES OF PUBLIC AMUSEMENT
    Akeeper of a place of public amusement or entertainment would be booked if he ‘knowingly’ permits drunkenness or other disorderly behaviour or gaming. A place of public amusement includes racecourse, theatre, music hall, billiard room, gymnasium, fencing school, swimming pool or dancing hall. A place of public entertainment includes a hotel, lodge, eating house, tavern, wine shop, beer shop or a place where bhang and opium is sold for public consumption
 

INTERPRETATION | An owner of such a place can be accused of ‘knowingly’ permitting drunkenness even if he or she has no role to play. Also, disorderly behaviour is not defined and permits police to define it at their discretion

Action | A fine 

 SECTION 111
 

 

OBSTRUCTING OR ANNOYING A PASSENGER IN THE STREET
    No person shall wilfully push, press, hustle or obstruct any passenger in a street or public place or by violent movements, menacing gestures, personal annoyance, screaming, shouting, wilfully frightening horses or cattle or otherwise disturb public peace or order
 

INTERPRETATION | Police can decide what a ‘menacing gesture’ is and randomly book people
 

Action | A fine of 1,200  

SECTION 112
MISBEHAVIOUR WITH INTENT TO PROVOKE BREACH OF PEACE
    No person shall use in any street or Public place any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intent to provoke breach of peace or whereby a breach of peace may be occasioned
 

 

INTERPRETATION | Again, it allows cops to decide what constitutes an insult

Action | A fine of 1,200 

 SECTION 113
 

PROHIBITION AGAINST FLYING KITE
    No person shall fly a kite so as to cause danger, injury or alarm to persons, horses or property
 

INTERPRETATION | Cops can harass people during Makar Sankranti if they so wish  

Action | A fine of 1,200

The Times of India, October 30, 2012