IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3593 OF 2025 Between: Shaik Asif, S/p. Shaik Farood, Aged 32 years occ; Private Employee, R/o. H.No.11-1-1204/1/100, Asif Nagar, Mallepally, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Rakesh @ Rakesh Pawar, S/o. Eswar Pawar, Age 28 years Occ Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No.ll-78,S.N. Colony, Ramachandhrapuram, Ramachandhrapuram Manda, Medak District, Telangana State. Naveen @ Yadia Naveen, S/o...., Age 28 years occ; Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 1-186A, Paludevarapadu Village, Muppala Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 1. 2. 3. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos. 1 to 3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor^ High Court at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the S.H.O. Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, to release the Petitioners on Bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the case in Crime No.376 of 2024 of Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: 1 APHC010167672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3593/2025 Between: Shaik Asif and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: The Criminal Petition, under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is filed on behalf of the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.376/2024 of Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur. 1. A case has been registered against the petitioners herein and another for the offence punishable under Sections 143(2) and 144(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1 )(a) & 7(1 )(a) of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. 2. The prosecution's case is that the incident occurred on 06.12.2024 at approximately 2:00 PM at Tura International SPA, Guntur. It was reported to 3. 4^ 2 the Pattabhipuram Police Station on the same day at 5:00 PM by the complainant, Inspector of Police. Based on credible information regarding the operation of a brothel, the complainant obtained a search warrant from the SDPO, West, Guntur District (C.No.52/SDP-WD/GNT/2024, dt.06.12.2024). He, along with his staff and mediators, conducted a search at the location and found that A.1 to A.3, with the assistance of A.4, were allegedly running a brothel under the guise of a spa. Women were reportedly brought in from various locations and recruited into prostitution in violation of government regulations. During the raid, A.2 to A.4 were apprehended, and seven victims of commercial sexual exploitation (VOCSE) were taken into custody. The police seized f3,000 from the cash counter, two AAOFENG walkie-talkies, a water-based lubricant (AVODA), one packet of OREDA, and Acemiz-S tablets under the cover of mediators’ report. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made in the FIR are entirely false, fabricated, and concocted with the sole intention of falsely implicating the petitioners. The de facto complainant, the Inspector of Police, has foisted the case for statistical purposes and to extort money. There is no material on record to substantiate the allegations or to indicate that any unlawful activity, including brothel operations, was being conducted at the premises. No public complaints were received, and the massage centre in question is being operated with valid statutory permissions. No incriminating material has been collected against the petitioners, and the contents of the complaint do not prima facie attract the provisions cited in the FIR. The petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent/State, opposes the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the investigation is still pending. 5. 4 3 I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the Petition as well as in the Report. 6. In Mahipal V. Rajesh\ the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the Court, while considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the crime. 7. In a case containing serious allegations, the Investigating Officer deserves free hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that the investigation officer who has been prevented from subjecting the Petitioner to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out prima facie substance in the allegations which are of extreme serious in nature. Possibility of the investigation getting effected, once the Petitioner is released on bail is very much foreseen. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners have no involvement in the alleged offence, and that their names were deliberately implicated. The learned counsel further contends that the police registered the case for statistical purposes, and that the facts presented in the complaint do not substantiate an offence under Section 143(2) and 144(2) of the BNS, as well as Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1 )(a), and 7(1 )(a) of the Prevention of Immoral T raffic Act. 9. The prosecution’s case is that the petitioners brought women from various locations to operate a brothel under the guise of a spa, in violation of government restrictions. They are also accused of recruiting seven VOCSE into prostitution and establishing them in prostitution-related activities. 10. The copies of the statements of LWs.1 to 14 were thoroughly perused, and they clearly support the prosecution's case that the petitioners are 11. (2020) 2 see 118 operating a brothel by bringing women from various places under the guise of a spa. Additionally, the petitioners are alleged to have recruited 7 VOCSE and induced LWs.5 to 11 into prostitution for the purpose of generating illegal profits. This Court finds no merit in the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the offences alleged are not substantiated by the facts of the The material on record indicates that the investigation is at the crucial stage. It is submitted on behalf of the Prosecution that the Police are not able to capture the petitioners even after a lapse of considerable time. It is also not the petitioners case that they cooperated with the investigation, investigation in this case has not been completed. The release of the petitioners may adversely affect the investigation process. There is every possibility of threatening the witnesses as apprehended by the Prosecution. To bring out all material information relating to the offence, the interrogation of the petitioners is required. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is paramount in this case to facilitate a thorough investigation into the allegations made against the petitioners. Denying custodial interrogation could result in significant loopholes and gaps in the ongoing investigation, adversely affecting its integrity. The grant of anticipatory at the investigation stage may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and collecting helpful information and the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogatipn will elude if the suspected person knows that they are well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order when they are interrogated. Considering all the attending facts and circumstances of the well as the gravity of the offence, as also the settled principle of law that power of grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is to be sparingly exercised in extraordinary circumstances and thus, no such circumstances being having been made out in this case, this Court does not find it granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the Petitioners/A. 1 to A.3. case. 12. The custodial 13. 14. case as a proper case for 5 'I 15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Ofiences against Women, Guntur. 2. The Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District. 3. One CC to SRI. Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies RDB PRK HIGH COURT DATED:08/05/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3593 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED