APHC010486152026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8212/2026 Between: 1. SHIVA SHANKAR, SHIVA SHANKAR KILAPARTHI SIVA SANKAR,S/O. TAVITI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,R/O. D.NO.5- 12, KILAPARTHI VEEDHI, PORAM POST,MENTADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8212 of 2026 Dated 23.09.2026 petitioner/Accused No.1, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.49 of 2026 of Dwaraka Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 143(3) and 144(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Sections 3(1), 4(1) and 5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for brevity ‘the PIT Act’). 2. Mr. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, has a fixed place of abode and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting pre-arrest bail. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that there are no specific overt acts attributed to the Petitioner. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Except Section 143(3) of ‘the BNS’, the rest of the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. As per Form-C, Accused No.2 is the person concerned with M/s. Nirvin Luxury Day Spa. The Petitioner has nothing to do with the running of the brothel under the guise of a spa. As per the lease and licence agreement, Accused No.2 is the licence holder. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on the spot and they are the persons who managed the brothel. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8212 of 2026 Dated 23.09.2026 bank transactions between Accused Nos.2 and 1 relate to rent dues and have no connection with the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. 3. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposes the petition and submits that there are bank transactions between the Petitioner and Accused No.2. L.Ws.15 and 16, who are bank officials, have stated about the same. Accused No.2 paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to Accused No.1/Petitioner. The Petitioner is the organizer of the brothel. Accused No.2 is the Manager and partner of the brothel. Accused No.3 is a telecaller and Accused No.4 is a customer. Accused No.2 engaged persons for flesh trade. The charge sheet has already been filed. The Petitioner is absconding. The accusation against the Petitioner is well founded. L.Ws.8 to 11, who are the victims, have spoken about the complicity of the Petitioner. Accused Nos.1 and 3 induced the victims. He further submits that the allegations disclose a prima facie case against the Petitioner and apprehends that, if granted pre-arrest bail, the Petitioner may influence the witnesses or hamper the investigation. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8212 of 2026 Dated 23.09.2026 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” 7. As seen from the record, this is the second bail application filed by the Petitioner. This Court, on 02.07.2026, in Crl.P.No.5049 of 2026, dismissed the first bail application. The Petitioner has chosen to engage another counsel and file the present pre-arrest bail application. The accusations against the Petitioner are well founded, as per the averments in the charge sheet. It is alleged that the Petitioner is the organizer of the brothel along with Accused Nos.2 to 4 and that he had been running the brothel. There are bank transactions between Accused Nos.2 and 1. L.Ws.15 and 16 are the bank officials, who have stated about the transactions between Accused Nos.2 and 1. L.Ws.8 to 11 are the victims, who have spoken about the Petitioner/Accused. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition. Hence, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission for the petitioner to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court and he may be released on the same day. 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8212 of 2026 Dated 23.09.2026 9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Chhawnika alias Om Prakash Chabnika v. State of Jharkhand1, particularly in paragraph Nos.12 and 13, wherein it was held that the High Courts should exercise caution in entertaining unnecessary anticipatory bail applications and that, upon rejection of an anticipatory bail application, the Court has no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail before the concerned Court. Though the Court may reject the anticipatory bail application, it cannot compel the petitioner to surrender. Therefore, the question of granting permission to surrender does not arise. 10. Be that as it may, Section 437 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 480 of ‘the BNSS’ enables the petitioner to appear before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned, which may be the Magistrate Court or a Special Court exercising the powers of a Magistrate, while dealing with the case. The learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders, either remanding him to judicial custody in respect of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or enlarging the petitioner on bail, subject to such conditions as may be imposed. 11. Therefore, no order is required to be passed by this Court in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Chhawnika alias Om Prakash Chabnika supra, and the petitioner is always at liberty to appear before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned by invoking the 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 676 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8212 of 2026 Dated 23.09.2026 jurisdiction of the said Court under Section 437 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 480 of ‘the BNSS’. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.09.2026 KMS 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8212 of 2026 Dated 23.09.2026 148 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8212 of 2026 23.09.2026 KMS