2025:JHHC:20272 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3853 of 2025 ----- Ashwini Kumar, S/o Rameshwar Prasad, R/o village- Gonava, Gondapur, P.O.- Nawadha, P.S.- Nawada, District Nawada, Bihar. .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, AddI. P.P. …...... 06/ 21.07.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 200 of 2024, for offences under Sections 98, 99 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 3, 4, 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The case is presently pending before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. 3. The case of prosecution is that 31.08.2024, around 10:00 PM, police received secret information about illegal sex racket at Hotel Spicy in Bagitand, Koderma. A police team raided the hotel and found the manager, Sanjay Kumar, present. During the raid, they found 5 women and some male customers engaged in sexual activities in different rooms. They were all arrested, and objectionable items along with mobile phones were seized. The police allege that the hotel is owned by two brothers, Mahadeo Sao and Sanjay Sao, but was given to Pintu Paswan and Ashwini Kumar to run the illegal sex trade. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is completely innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that no reliable evidence has been found which suggest that he was involved in the offence. He further submits that the petitioner is neither owner of the hotel nor he is running the hotel. He had no concerned with the business of the alleged hotel. He further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He further submits that the women involved in the alleged offence has not taken name of the petitioner in their confessional statement. 5. The learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. He further submits that the petitioner was actively involved in the illegal sex business at the hotel and was responsible for bringing sex workers for prostitution in the said hotel. He also submits that the prostitution was happening at the hotel since its inception and the business of sex work in the hotel was being carried out at the instance of the petitioner, as he is the person who used to arrange the girls. 6. After hearing the parties and from the perusal of the impugned order, I find that the allegations against the petitioner is serious in nature. From the confessional statements of co- accused persons, it is clear that the petitioner was involved in running the sex business in hotel. The allegations have been also supported by the co-accused Sumitra Devi in her confessional statement who used to procure and bring the sex workers in the said hotel at the instruction of the petitioner. Since these are serious allegations that harm society at large, the court believes this is not a suitable case for anticipatory bail. Hence, the court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./