APHC010457732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9086/2025 Between: Palisetty Praveen Kumar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State 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: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for grant pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.152 of 2025 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143 (3), 144 (2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), 3 (1), 4 (1), 5 (1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for brevity ‘the Act’). 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9086 of 2025 Dated 10.09.2025 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.07.2025, the Sub-Inspector of III Town P.S. received information about running of brothel 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 Respondent Police along with mediators rushed to the scene of offence and found Accused No.2, who is the Manager of the said Mini Thai Spa and came to know that Accused No.1 was running the said brothel house by securing young women 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 receiving massage by wearing towel. Accused No.3 paid Rs. 10,000/- for both massage and sexual services through PhonePe and went into the room, while one lady Mannat Khureshi was massaging Accused No.3. Then the complainant arrested Accused No.2 and who is the Manager and Accused No.3 is the Customer and rescued five victims and seized two cellphones from the possession of Accused No.2 and one cellphone from possession of A3 as per the contents of report. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri G. Maheswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely implicated in this case. He is the sole bread winner of his family. He is ready to abide by 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9086 of 2025 Dated 10.09.2025 any conditions to be imposed by this Court. It is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner stating that some more material witnesses have to be examined. Investigation is not completed. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he would escape from the clutches of law, and it is requested to pass appropriate orders by dismissing the petition. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 7. As seen from the record, the allegations against the petitioner/Accused No.1 are that he is running a spa centre as its owner and has been indulging in operating a brothel by luring victims into prostitution. L.W.1 and other witnesses have spoken about the alleged role played by the petitioner. Since specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner/Accused No.1. The investigation is at a nascent stage, and several witnesses are to be examined. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9086 of 2025 Dated 10.09.2025 A substantial portion of the investigation remains incomplete. Therefore, request for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not appear to be convincing or reasonable. Furthermore, importantly grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, against whom specific overt acts grave in nature are alleged, is neither a license for commission of serious offence nor a shield or protection for having committed grave offences, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2 . There are no merits in the petition. The petitioner/accused is disentitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. CONCLUSION: 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 10.09.2025 KMS 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9086 of 2025 Dated 10.09.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9086/2025 Dated 10.09.2025 KMS