■V ✓ JJ369 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT; THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3474 OF 2025 - ■0M .V C,. :0 i ''I ■V Between: Batta Veera Venkata Durga Prasad, S/o Venkata years, Hindu, Resident of Flat No.GF-1, Anantharama Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. Ramana, Aged 32 Residency f Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor Through the SHO, II Town Police Station Visakhapatnam, High Court Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. of Respondent ^ Petition under Sections 482 of BNSS (old 438 of Cr.P.C) praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused bail, in the event of arrest i 1 on in connection with Crime No. 192/2024, dt. 12.7.2024, on the file of the II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the upon hearing the arguments of Sri grounds filed in support thereof and SESHU KUMAR NALI, Advocate PROSECUTOR for the Respondent and the Court made the for the Petitioner and of PUBLIC following; APHC010129902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3474/2025 Between: Batta Veera Venkata Durga Prasad ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.SESHU KUMAR NALI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, u/Sec.482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner, seeking anticipatory bail, in Crime No.192/2024 of II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable u/Sec.143(3) of B.N.S and Section 3(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 2 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the Inspector of II Town Police station, Visakhapatnam city received credible information on 12.7.2024 at 7.00 pm that about procuring women through “findbestclass.com” website for doing prostitution in Room No.101, Siri Grand Hotel, 1®‘floor, Prema Plaza, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam City and he secured the mediators and proceeded to the place and found two women and on seeing police, they tried to escape. Then police apprehended them and on enquiry, they disclosed their identity particulars. On search, police did not find anything incriminating in the room. On verifying the cell phones of the said two woman, who are the victims, said Inspector of police found the cell phone numbers of one Punjabi lady i.e. A1 and further on checking their whatsapp found three photos were sent to others. Mediators report was drafted and registered the same as a case in cr.No.192/2024 of II Town police station. Visakhapatnam City. Heard. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the 6. case of the prosecution only basing on the CDRs, the petitioneris arrayed as an accused and there is no direct involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence and prays to allow the criminal petition. 3 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is at crucial stage in this case and prays to dismiss the criminal petition. As seen from the material available on the record, basing on the statement of co-accused, the case came to be registered against the petitioner. According to the prosecution case, the CDRs collected during the investigation discloses that the present petitioner contacted with the main accused and other accused, simply because the petitioner being a cab driver, he might have come in contact with several persons. Simply 8. because he contacted with the prime accused, in the absence of any allegations and involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the crime, he cannot be arrayed as an accused. It seems that except call data, prosecution has not collected the material as to what was actually ( conversed between them. In absence of such material on record, this i Court found that it is doubtful with regard to the participation of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. When ascertained, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no antecedents reported against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned police station within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and on his surrender the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like 9. 4 sum each to the petitioner shall required and he shall prosecution witnesse*? Officer concerned on ' noerned on eveor Sunday between 10.00 a. and 12 00 Penod of two (02) months. Accordingly, the Criminal satisfaction of the make himself arresting police officials 'uvestigation and the available for i as and when not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the noon for 10. Petition is allowed. SO/. V.SAVITHRI ASSISTANT GOWRi istrar section ^ficer //TRUE COPY// Fc To. T The Sessions Judge. Mahila 2. The Station House Officer, District 5. One spare copy ^ Court, Visakhapatnam II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Kj HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED:08/04/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.3474 of 2025 ALLOWED I