\\\® I/ lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ll^/ENTY FIVE :PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2986 OF 2025 Betwee n.- BitrapatI' Tarun Kumar, S/o.Shanmukha Rao, aged about 23 years, studying B.Tech, final year, R/o.D.No.38-41-6,104 Area, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. ...Petl-tioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra pradesh, Rep by its public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...Respondent petition under section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C & 480 & 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in memorandum of grounds of Criminal Petitl®on, the Hl'gh Court may be pleased to release the Petl®tioner/Accused No.2 on bail in connection wl-th crl®me No. 32 / 2025 dated: o1.03.2025 Under Sections 143(3),144(2) BNS, 3(1), 4(1),5(1)(a) PIT ACT. On the file of the Dwaraka police station, visakhapatnam Commissionerate, visakhapatnam District,a The petition coml'ng on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and memorandum of grounds and upon hearing the arguments of sri Srinivasulu.P, Advocate for the petl-tioner and pubII®C Prosecutor for the Respondent; ~ APHCO10140452025 HELFE I/ lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO c RI MJREEI!I[Q±!LN O : 29 8 6L±2Q2± Between : Bitrapati Tarun Kumar AND The State Of Andhra PradeSh counsel for the petitioner/accused: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 1.SRINIVASULU P counsel for the Respondent/COmPIainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the fOllOWing|. ORDER-- The Criminal Petition filed, u/Sec.437 & 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail, by petitioner/A2 in Cr.No.32/2025 of Dwaraka Police Station, visakhapatnam commissionerate registered for the offence punishable u/section 143(3), 144(2) B.N.S and Section 3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. 2. Heard leamed COunSel for the Petitioner and the leamed Assistant public prosecutor representing the respondent/State. 3| The case of the Prosecution in briefiSthat: on o1.3.2025 at 6.00 pm, at CA Luxury Thai Spa, 4th floor, Krishna enclave, beside Reliance Petrol bunk, Seethammapeta main road, visakhapatnam city, the Inspector Of POliCe, On receipt Of Credible information, secured the presengLe£f Staff and mediators and Went tO the =z3ifEiE above said place. They found two male persons in front office, on seeing them the said two persons got confused and they were caught hold by the POliCe. On enquiry, they disclosed their identity particulars as that of A2 and A3 and further revealed that there are three customers inside the three rooms of the Spa with their famI'ly massage therapists and prostl-tution was carrying out in the said two rooms. police found three persons in three rooms who are A4 to A6 and they were charged amounts for prostitution with the massage therapists. Al recruited young women as massage therapists lured them into engaging prostitution by force and offering additional commission apart from their salaries. Police arrested A2 to A5 and seized mobile phones, condoms, payment scanner and cash. Subsequently on 01.3.2025 at 10.30 pm Al surrendered before the court and that Al to A3 were sent to remand, section 35(3) B.N.S.S. notices were issued to A4 to A6. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been in judicial custody from o1.3.2025 and the investigation in the present crime is almost completed, further detention of petitioner is not required and he is studying B.Tech in chaitanya Engineering College, Visakhapatnam and he has to write B.Tech lSt semester advanced supplementary examination for the academic year 2024-25 in the month of March and to that effect identity card and hall ticket of the petitioner was filed. He J-Oined in the Spa center to assist in computer biIIing, after college y{73±, \\S hours as his father is a driver and earning meager amount and prays to allow the criminal petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed tO grant bail to the petitioner. He further Submits that investigation iS at crucial stage and that the petitioner has no previous antecedents. 6. Admittedly, it is the Case Of'the Prosecution that Al is the owner Of the said spa. The petitioner/A2 is a student and Studying B.Tech and he joined |ln the spa center as part time after his college hours to assist his father financially. lt is submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner has nothing to do with the activities of the A1's Spa, to get his livelihood, he joined in the Said Shop. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not disputed the submissions made by the petitionerJs counsel. Th;tsts ts petitioner has been in judicial custody from o1.3,2025, this Court found that most of the investigation pertaining to the role played by the petitioner in the commission of the offence has been completed. Father of the petitioner is a driver earning monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- and to assist his father financially, he do work in the spa center after college hours. The petitioner has got permanent abode at visakhapatnam as such there is no possibility of his fleeing away from justice, Most of the Witnesses are official witnesses and release of the accused WOuld not Cause tamPering Of evidence and hampering of investigation. ]n view of the same, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. I 8. ln the result, the-' criminal petition is allowed with the following condI'tiOnS: i. The petitioner/A2 herein sha" be released on bail on his executI'ng a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty fI-Ve thousand Only) with two (o2) sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned FI-rSt Additional Chief Judicial Magl-strafe, vI'Sakhapatnam; ii. After release, the petitioner shall appear before the station House officer concerned once I-n a week i.e. on every sunday in between 10,OO am and o1.00 pm, for a period of two (o2) months,I and iii. That the petitioner is directed not to hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution witnesses and he shaH cooperate with the investigation. SD/-M.sRINfVAS I--. _ _ ASSISTiriii lS TRAR Fckrs +-~+,+_ I.. //TRUE COPY// ForAooloI^l`..`__--------- To, 1. The lSt Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, 2. The Superintendent, central prison, visakhapatnam 3. The Station House Officer, Dwaraka Police Station, VisakhaPatnam Commissionerate, vI'SakhaPatnam District. 4. One CC to Sri. Srinivasulu.P, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two cos to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] 6. One spare copy MM HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED :27/03/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2986 of 2025 ALLOWED ll NIELR \\15',, nEL4 'ft