\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI % S3 •A. ;*v.- ;.V' FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX : PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1334 OF 2026 ’''Ji i-i Between: Thurakapudi Hymavathi, D/o. Bala Swami, aged about 29 years, R/o. Arilova Colony, Visakhapatnam City, Presently residing at Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam City Visakhapatnam District, A.P. ...Petitioner/Accused No.3 ^ AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C/ Under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.06/2026 of Dwaraka P.S., Visakhapatnam District. ^ The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent, the Court made the following 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1334/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the Petitioner herein/Accused No.3, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.06/2026 of Dwaraka P.S., Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 143 (3), 144(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”) and Sections 3(1), 4(1) and 5(1 )(a) of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (for short “PIT Act”). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.01.2025 at about 7:00 PM, the Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Police Station, Visakhapatnam, upon receipt of credible information, secured the presence of mediators and proceeded to Rose Luxury Thai Spa at Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam. On reaching the premises, he found A1 to A3 at the reception. On seeing the police, they attempted to escape. Upon enquiry, they disclosed that A4 inside a room along with a massage therapist and that prostitution activities were going on. Thereafter, A1 to A4 were arrested under the cover of a mediators’ report. In their confessional statements, A1 to A3 disclosed that the was owner of the said premises is one Busi Naresh and that, along with him, they were running prostitution activities at the said establishment. 3. Heard Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. f 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is Accused No.3 and has nothing to do with the alleged commission of the offence. She has been falsely implicated in the said crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 08.01.2026. He further submits that the police have examined as many as six witnesses, seized the entire property from the accused, and completed the investigation, except for filing of the charge sheet. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam, having a fixed place of abode and immovable assets. She is working only as a receptionist and earns a salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. She has a daughter aged about five years, who is presently staying with distant relatives. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that though it is true that the petitioner is working as a receptionist and drawing a salary, the owner of the premises is still absconding in the present case. She contended that the role of the petitioner cannot be brushed aside at this stage, as the investigation is still in progress and the apprehension of the absconding accused is yet to be secured. She would further submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. r 4 6. Considering the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 08.01.2026. The investigation is almost completed, except for filing of the charge sheet. At this stage, there is no specific material placed before the Court to show the direct involvement of the petitioner in the offence, except general allegations. Taking into account the period of detention and the facts and circumstances of the case, and as the presence of the petitioner can be secured by imposing appropriate conditions, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. In that view, the petitioner is entitled to be released on regular bail on the following conditions; upon The petitioner/accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner/accused No.3 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall cooperate with further investigation, if any. The petitioner/accused No.3 shall not directly or indirectly tamper with evidence nor influence, intimidate, or induce any prosecution witness. The petitioner/accused No.3 shall appear before the Station House Officer, concerned, once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till further orders. I. a sum II. iii. IV. f 5 The petitioner/accused No.3 shall not commit or indulge in commission V. of any offence in future. The petitioner/accused No.3 shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court. If she clarms that she does not have a passport, she VI. shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the concerned Court. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution 7. shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are only for 8. the purpose of deciding the bail application and they shall not be construed as opinion on the merits of the Crime. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. 9. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in ''■ registrar 't'^officer this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. SDI- assistant SE' //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam 2. The I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam 3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam ^ 4. The Station House Officer, Dwaraka Police Station, Visakhapatnam District 5. One CC to SRI. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. One spare copy PSR HIGH COURT DR.VJP,J DATED:27/02/2026 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.1334 of 2026 ALLOWED