APHC010374432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7705/2025 Between: 1. G HEMA SEKHAR REDDY ALIAS CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, S/O G. BHASKAR REDDY, AGED 33 YRS, R/O. 502-6, VENUGOPALA PURAM, MAMBBEDI PICKET, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner-accused No. 2 in crime No. 287 of 2025 of Tirupati East Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143 (2) and 144 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 (1), 4 (1), 5 (1) (a) and 7 (1) (a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 2. Case of the prosecution is that the petitioner-accused No. 2 has knowingly given his hotel by name New Aishwarya Hotel situated at Old Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati, to accused No. 1 for running brothel house. Accused No. 3 was working as a room boy. On 25-06-2025 at 4 p.m. in room Nos. 203 and 204 situated at first floor of Hotel New Aishwarya, the police officials conducted raid and apprehended accused No. 4 who came to the said hotel to have sexual intercourse with victim woman No. 1. Thereafter, the police arrested accused Nos. 3 and 4, seized cash of Rs.2,000/- under a cover of mahazarnama and remanded them to judicial custody. It is the further case of prosecution that accused Nos. 1 and 2 absconded from the scene of offence. 3. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of his family. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the 3 foregoing, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, Ms. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No. 2, as seen from the record, is that he is the leaseholder of the hotel, in which the alleged prostitution was going on with the help of accused No. 1. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused No. 2 that he received considerable amount for running brothel house in the hotel. There are specific overt acts against the petitioner-accused No. 2 that he allegedly provided rooms in New Aishwarya Hotel to accused No. 1 knowing pretty well that those rooms are used for flesh trade/prostitution. Thus, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the petitioner facilitated the operation of brothel. 4 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner inasmuch as it would amount to giving a license for the person against whom serious allegations are levelled and it would also amount to giving a shield or protection for commission of non-bailable offence as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab 1 and Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State of Delhi2. Hence, there are no merits in the criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 01.09.2025 JSK 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 5 HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7705 OF 2025 Date: 01.09.2025 JSK