APHC010425442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8540/2025 Between: 1. SURISETTY SIVA KISHORE, S/O APPANNA, AGED 35 YRS, FLAT NO.202, HARISHITH PLAZA SATHAVAHANANAGAR, KURMANAPALEM VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. DHARMANA SOMESWARA RAO, S/O APPARAO, AGED 25 YRS R/AT NAR DHATTATREYA TEMPLE SATRAM VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Throug the S.H.O. of Dwarka P.S. Visakhapatnam City Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioners- accused Nos. 1 and 2 on bail in crime No. 122 of 2025 of DwarakaPolice Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143 (3) and 144 (2) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the B.N.S.'), and Sections 3 (1), 4 (1) and 5 (1) (a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, '1956 Act'). 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 18-07-2025 at about 5 p.m., the Sub Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Police Station, received information from City Task Force Police Station with regard to the prostitution activities carried out at Lavish Wellness Thai Spa, Dwaraka Nagar, First Lane, Visakhapatnam. After obtaining search proceedings to conduct raid and after securing the presence of mediators and staff, the Sub Inspector proceeded to the said place at about 5.40 p.m. On seeing them, two male persons tried to flee inside the Spa. The Sub Inspector of Police apprehended them. On examination, they disclosed their identity as accused Nos. 1 and 2 and they confessed that one male customer i.e. accused No. 3 and one female Therapist were inside the room and prostitution activities were being carried out in the Spa. The Sub Inspector arrested accused Nos. 1 to 3 and detained four female massage therapists and seized cash and cellphones under a cover of mediators' report. 3 3. Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the petitioners are innocents of the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of their families and, therefore, their continued incarceration would cause undue hardship totheir dependents. The petitionersundertaketo strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the 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 bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law.Inviewof the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the allegation is that the petitioner-accused No. 1 is the owner of the Spa Centre and the petitioner-accused No. 2 is the Manager of the Spa Centre, where the alleged prostitution was being carried out by bringing girls from various States under the guise of recruitment as Therapists. The victim girls, who were suffered from the flesh trade, have 4 given statements against the petitioners attracting the provisions of Section 144 (2) of the B.N.S. and 1956 Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the order passed by High Court for the State of Telangana in G.Srihari v. The State of Telangana1, wherein it is held at para No. 7 as under: "To invoke the provision of law under Sections 370 and 370 (A) of IPC, there should be proof to show that trafficking of a person and engagement of such person for sexual exploitation by any one, knowingly or having reason to believe that such person has been trafficked. So, it is for the prosecution to bring on record the evidence that there is a reason inter alia to believe that the victims are trafficked by engaged persons for sexual exploitation. In the present case, as seen from the entire case record, the victim stated that she was doing prostitution for the sake of money and she joined brothel house and given her willingness to do sex with customers. Since material is produced by the prosecution to prove that the victim woman was trafficked, she was engaged for sexual exploitation and as the petitioner had no knowledge that the victim woman was trafficked for the purpose of prostitution, the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 370 (A) IPC, are liable to be quashed." 8. In the case on hand, the victims have given statements against the petitioners that they lured the victims to give some financial encouragements if the victims do sexual favours to the customers who attend the Spa Centre. At this point of time and this fora, the guilt of the petitioners cannot be determined. The investigation is at the nascent stage. Some more witnesses are to be examined. Hence, at this juncture, the request of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be considered. There are no merits in the criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 1 Order dated 29-01-2025 in Criminal Petition No. 976 of 2025 5 9. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 29.08.2025 JSK 6 THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8540 OF 2025 Date:29.08.2025 JSK