Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010135362026 2026:GAU-AS:10319 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1843/2026 NAMITA DEVI W/O- RINKU DAS, R/O- GEETANAGAR, NEAR FACULTY SCHOOL, P.S.- GEETANAGAR, DIST- KAMRUP (M) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P K KALITA, MS. R BORGOHAIN,MR D MEDHI,MR P SONOWAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 28-07-20 26 Heard Mr. P. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. P. Gswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, seeking bail of the petitioner, namely, Namita Devi, who was arrested on 14.06.2026 in connection with Geetanagar P.S. Case No. 61/2026 registered under Sections 143(3)/144(2)/3(5) of BNS, read with Sections 3/4/5(1)/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. 3. The allegation as contained in the FIR reveal that a raid was carried out at SND Beauty Parlour SPA owned by one Sonmoni Das @ Munu, situated at Zoo Road Tiniali, Guwahati on 13.06.2026 and in course of such raid, which was conducted upon prior information, it was found that a prostitution racket was being run in the said Beauty Parlour. Several persons including the present petitioner who was described as a manager of the Beauty Parlour were arrested. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she was wrongly been described as the manager of the Beauty Parlour, wherein, she is actually working as a beautician and that she has no role in the running of the prostitution racket, as alleged. 5. Case diary as called for has been received and upon perusal of the same, it is submitted by the learned Addl. PP that there is material against the present petitioner. 6. Having regard to the nature of the allegation and the period of detention Page No.# 3/3 of 45 days, further detention of the petitioner is not considered necessary. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. 8. Consequently, the petitioner, named above shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Eleka Magistrate in connection with the aforementioned case. 9. It is further directed that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case. 10. The bail application accordingly stands disposed of. 11. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant