APHC010243162026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3820/2026 Between: 1. KOMMANAPALLI SURYA RAO, S/O. APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 32YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 369, SALURU MANDAL, RAMALAYAMSTREET, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its PublicProsecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, throughStation House Officer, III Town Police Station,Visakhapatnam City - 530003. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on regular bail in Crime No.36/2026 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City U/s. 143(3), 144(2), r/w. 3(5) of BNSS and Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1 )(a) of PIT Act, on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. M. SAPTHAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3820/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.36 of 2026 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143(3), 144(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”) and Sections 3(1), 4(1) and 5(1)(a) of PIT Act. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.03.2026 a prostitution racket was being run at Sunset Family Luxury Spa Center, opposite Tycoon Restaurant on VIP Road, CBM Compound, Visakhapatnam, in violation of Government orders. Acting on information received from the Sub-Inspector of Police, City Task Force, the Station House Officer of III Town Police Station obtained permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police and conducted a raid with mediators and staff. During the raid, A1, the spa manager, tried to escape but was caught and stated that A3 was running the business by bringing women from other states and offering illegal services in the name of spa treatments, with payments made digitally. A2 was found in a room with a woman, allegedly involved in such activity, while five other women were found in another room and rescued. Based on the mediators’ report and statements, A1 and A2 were arrested, a mobile phone and Rs. 9,000 were 3 seized, and a case in Crime No. 36/2026 was registered under Sections 143(3), 144(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS. 3. Heard Sri M. Sapthagiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He was falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his entire family. He would further submit that the crucial part of the investigation might have been completed by this time. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 31.03.2026. The petitioner is only a Manager of the Spa and had no role in any illegal activities. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, submitting that investigation is still pending and several witnesses remain to be examined. It was further stated that Accused No.3, who is the organizer of Sunset Family Spa, is yet to be arrested. The seized material has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. It was argued that, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may commit similar offences and may also tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. 4 Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions and a fair look on the material placed on record before this Court, in the light of the facts that the statutory period is not complete, the investigation is still at a nascent stage, and the nature of the offence, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of regular bail at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 04.05.2026. UPS 5 39 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3820/2026 Dt.04.05.2026 UPS