MUMBAI, Nov. 17 -- In a significant ruling that clarifies the limits of criminal liability in dance bar cases, the Bombay High Court has held that simply being present at a bar where dancers are performing cannot, by itself, make a customer a criminal. The court quashed a charge sheet filed against a Chembur resident who was arrested during a police raid at Surabhi Palace Bar and Restaurant on the night of May 4-5, 2024. The raid, conducted on the basis of a tip-off, led to the detention of 11 people, including the restaurant manager, orchestra artistes and several customers. The police alleged that the women present were performing "obscene dances." One of the customers was subsequently booked under section 188 of the IPC (disobedience of public order) and multiple 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 police, he had "encouraged" the dancers, thereby abetting the offences. Challenging the charges, the customer argued before the High Court that the accusations against him were baseless. Even assuming the police report to be true, he said, there was nothing to show he had disobeyed any order or instigated any illegal activity. His counsel, Sunny A Waskar, stressed that merely sitting inside a bar where dancing is taking place cannot amount to an offence under the law. The prosecution disagreed. Additional public prosecutor PP Malshe told the court that the FIR suggested the applicant was encouraging the dancers and therefore could not be absolved at this stage. Justice NJ Jamadar, however, found the evidence wanting. The court noted that beyond a vague assertion that the applicant had "encouraged" the performers, the police had shown no overt act, no instigation, and no material indicating conspiracy or intentional aid. The panchanama, the judge noted, merely recorded his presence at the bar. "Mere presence in an establishment where a dance performance is rendered would not constitute disobedience of lawful orders or abetment," the court observed. With no prima facie case made out, either under the IPC or the state's Obscene Dance Act, continuing the prosecution, the court said, would amount to an abuse of process. With this, the High Court quashed the charge sheet against the customer, drawing a clear line between actual participation in an offence and simple presence at the scene....