APHC010453842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9003/2025 Between: BOSA RAMA KRISHNA, S/O NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O D.NO.48-18-48, THULASIPETA,RAMA TALKIES, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through SHO, III Town PS, Visakhapatnam City, rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SRINIVASULA REDDY KOMMASANI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.138 of 2025 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 143(2), 144(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on credible information, the police conducted a ride in a house bearing Dr.No.52-14-16/1, Old Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam City. The petitioner/Accused No.2 herein along with Accused No.1 confessed that they are conducting prostitution in their house. The police apprehended the petitioner herein along with other accused, registered a case in the above crime and remanded the accused to judicial custody. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Kommasani Srinivasula Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioner is the AC mechanic by profession. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause 3 undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner is AC mechanic and he visited the house of Accused No.1 on her phone call to repair her AC. Petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is submitted that petitioner is a rowdy-sheeter. She further submits that the proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Divisional Magistrate for seizure of the brothel are pending and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 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: 4 “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 7. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.2 is that with his assistance and cooperation, Accused No.1 was running a brothel in Visakhapatnam City. So far, eight (8) witnesses have been examined. L.W.1 is the victim. The petitioner was arrested on 02.07.2025 and that for the past 65 days, he has been in judicial custody. The proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub-Divisional magistrate for seizure of the brothel are pending. Major portion of the investigation is completed. Material witnesses have been examined. The petitioner is permanent resident of Visakhapatnam City. If stringent conditions are imposed while granting bail to the petitioner, the interests of justice would be well served. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 5 ii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 09.09.2025 KA 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9003/2025 Date: 09.09.2025 KA