APHC010060782026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 920/2026 Between: PALLISETTY PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O P. NARAYANA RAO, AGED 32 YRS , D.NO.1920 ROAD NO.8 SECTOR 1 LOTUS LAND MARK.AYODHYA NAGAR GANDHINAGARAM,VIJAYAWADA URBAN KRISHNA DISTRICT A.P.520003 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE S.H.O., OF III TOWN P.S.,VISAKHAPATNAM CITY REP.,BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner / Accused No.1, in connection with Crime No.152 of 2025 on the file of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, which is registered for the offences under Sections 143(3), 144(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1), 4(1) and 5(1)(a) of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. 2 2. Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and is falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is no way connected to the said SPA, which is the place of occurrence of the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the investigation is almost completed except filing of charge sheet. The Petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. It is submitted that the Petitioner has a fixed abode and there is no likelihood of his abscondence. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and would submit that the Petitioner has been running the SPA, wherein, prostitution was being conducted by luring innocent women. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and a bare perusal of the material placed on record would disclose that there are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner. The earlier applications filed by the Petitioner seeking anticipatory bail were dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. As per the ruling laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)2, grant of pre-arrest bail is neither a licence for the 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 3 commission of an offence nor a shield for those against whom specific accusations have been made. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.R.Ananda Babu vs. State of Tamil Nadu3 categorically held that successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained, when the accused is absconding and is not cooperating with the investigation. 6. In the instant case, it is alleged against the Petitioner that he is the owner of the SPA centre and he indulged in operating a brothel by luring the victims into the flesh trade. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgments, considering the nature of the offence and the allegations leveled against the Petitioner, this Court is of the view that, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. The petition lacks merit and deserves dismissal. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:16.02.2026 Dinesh 3 (2021) 16 SCC 725 4 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.920 of 2026 DATE:16.02.2026 Dinesh