APHC010440172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8777 Between: 1. MOGASALA RAMESH, S/O. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2 VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following O The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha ‘BNSS’) to enlarge the Petitioner/ 2025 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam D IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8777 OF 2025 MOGASALA RAMESH, S/O. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2-59, RAJEEV NAGAR, OLD DAIRY FARM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order : Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNSS’) (for brevity etitioner/ Accused No.2 on bail in Crime III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, for the offence under IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO MOGASALA RAMESH, S/O. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 31 59, RAJEEV NAGAR, OLD DAIRY FARM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Prosecutor, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 0 and 483 of the Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNSS’) (for brevity 2 on bail in Crime No.152 of for the offence under Sections 143(3), 144(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity BNS) and Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.07.2025, the Sub Inspector of Police received information about running of brother house at D.No.10-50- 11/6/5, 3rd Floor, Snehandra Building, Mini Thai Spa, beside Laddu Gopal Building, Waltair Main Road, Visakhapatnam. The Police raided the spa, where it was found that the Accused No.1 was running the said brothel house by securing young girls on the pretext of beauticians and massage therapist and sent them to the customers for the purpose of prostitution and living with illegal earnings. While, Accused No.3 was getting massaged by wearing towel and paid 10,000/- for both massage and sexual services through PhonePe and went into the room, while one lady was massaging Accused No.3. Accused No.2 is the Manager and Accused No.3 is the customer. Police rescued five victims and seized two mobiles from them under cover of Mediators Report. Basing on report of the defacto complainant, the police registered a case and Accused No.2 was arrested and sent to judicial custody on 17.07.2025. 3. Mr. G. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is a B.Tech graduate and he was working in the Spa Centre for Rs. 10,000/- on salary basis and that Petitioner has not committed any offence, he was falsely implicated in the case; he is the sole bread-winner of his family; he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and urged to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. 4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed to grant bail to the Petitioner, submits that the investigation is still in progress and several material witnesses were remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged to dismiss the Petition. 5. Heard leaned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. The allegation against the Petitioner/ Accused No.2 is that he was acting as a Manager of the Spa Centre. Five victims namely LWs 1 to 5 have stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., not only against the other Accused, but also the present Petitioner. Only 7 witnesses have been examined. The investigation is at nascent stage. The Proceedings of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate are pending for seizure of the house, used for doing prostitution. There are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner that he used to act as a mediator for the flush trade and took some amount towards his commission from the customers. 7. For the above reasons, there are no merits for granting bail to the Petitioner at this juncture. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed for the present. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 30.08.2025 KK