1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATTC^^^l^^ FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE : PRESENT: I THE HONOURABLE DR JjJSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO; 10474 OF 2025 v' ■-7 ' , >■ 7/ A 7 *c-0- 'S-J Between: Mude Prabhakar Naik (Accused No.3) S/o. Chandra Naik, aged about 30 years, R/o. Eguva Sugalibidiki, Vanarachapalli Village, T. Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District. Petitioner/Accused No.3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Through Chinna Chowk U/G Police Station, Kadapa, YSR (Kadapa) District High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. Respondent Petition under Section 480 and 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with the F.l.R.No.263 of 2025 on the file of Chinna Chowk U/G Police Station, Kadapa, YSR (Kadapa) District Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Shaik Mohammad Ismail Counsel for the Respondent; Public Prosecutor THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER APHC010538092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSANd) AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10474 OF 2025 Between: 1.MUDE PRABHAKAR NAIK, S/0. CHANDRA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/0. EGUVA SUGALIBIDIKI, VANARACHAPALLI VILLAGE, T. SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Through Chinna Chowk U/G Police Station, Kadapa, YSR (Kadapa) District High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following 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.3 on bail in Crime No.263 of 2025 of Chinna Chowk U/G Police Station, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 143(1 )(f) (2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Corresponding offence 370 (1)(vi)(2) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.) and Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1 )(a) and 6(1j)(a) 'of Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act, 1956. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The allegation against the Petitioner/ Accused No.3, as per the allegations of the prosecution, only a customer presented at the time of alleged offence at the scene of offence. The Petitioner was arrested on 3. 06.09.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 42 days. The Investigating Officer, after thorough investigation filed Charge Sheet. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Petition No.6182 of 2022, dated 11.08.2022, wherein the Judgments of this Court in Padala Venkata Sai Rama Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No. 6733 of 2021, dated 29.11.2021, Salapu Venkateswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No.2156 of 2022, dated 13.03.2022, Z. Lourdiah Naidu v. State of A.P\ Goenka Sajan Kumar v. The State of A.P^ and also the decision of Karnataka High Court in Sri Roopendra Singh v. State of Karnataka^ were referred, wherein it was held that continuation of criminal 2013(2) ALD (Cri) 393 = 2014(1) ALT (Cri) 322 (A.P) " 2014(2) ALD (Cri) 264 = 2015(1) ALT (Cri) 85 (A.P) ^ CrI.Petition No.312 of 2020, dated 20.01.2021 proceedings against the Petitioner therein, who was present in a brothel house at the time of raid by the Police as a customer, or fastening with any criminal liability in respect of any of the alleged offences against the Petitioner therein was not maintainable. This Court in Z. Lourdiah Naidu supra at Paras 6 and 7 held as follows: 5. “6. Section 4 of the Act would be attracted only if a person knowingly lives on the earnings of the prostitution of any other person. The activity carried out in a given premises will amount to prostitution within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act only if sexual abuse by exploitation of the person is done for commercial purpose. 7. Section 4 of the Act does not punish or make the person liable for the acts done by the person who is running the brothel house. This Section does not make the person, who carries on prostitution for her own gain, liable for punishment, so also the person who is running the said premises. This Section is meant to punish those persons who are living on the earnings of the prostitute. The said provision cannot be invoked for prosecuting the persons who visit the said premises. Therefore, the ingredients of Sections 3 and 4of the Act are not made out. In that view of the matter, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners inC.C.No.337 of 2008 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yerramanzil, Hyderabad is nothing but abuse of process of Court. ” 6. In Goenka Sajan Kumar supra at Paras 4 and 5 held as follows: “4. Section 3 of the Act imposes punishment for maintaining a brothel house or allowing premises to be used as a brothel house. Section 4 imposes penalty for living on the earnings of prostitution. Section 5 deals with the procurement, inducement or inducing a person for the sake of prostitution. Section 6 of the Act speaks about detaining a person in the premises where prostitution is carried out. 5. None of these sections speak about punishment to the customer of a brothel house. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fall under the provisions of Sections 3 to 7 of the Act, as the petitioner was not running a brothel house nor did he allow his premises to be used as a brothel house. The petitioner is not alleged to be living on the earnings of prostitution. It Is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner w/'as procuring, inducing or in dicing any person for the sake of prostitution nor is it the case of the prosecution that any person ivas earning on the premises where prostitution is carried out. ” 1. With regard to proposition laid down by this Court and other Courts, there is a reference is pending before the Division Bench of this Court. Be that as it may, in view of the completion of the investigation, a^Charge Sheet has been filed. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2156 of 2022 in between Salapu Venkateswara Rao supra, while relying on the decisions supra, allowed the Criminal Petition, which is filed for quashment of P.R.C.No.122 of 2019 on the filq of ’learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The Petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 42 days. 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/ Accused No.3 on 8. bail with the following condition; The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate i) of First Class, Kadapa. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. 9. SD/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER For To, 1. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1®* Class, Kadapa 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District 3. The SHO, Chinna Chowk U/G Police Station, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 4. One CC to Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED: 17/10/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.10474 of 2025 ALLOWED