APHC010378492026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6137/2026 Between: 1. NODAGULA DILEEP, S/O. BABU RAO,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,R/O. D.NO.5-91, GOLLALA YENDADA, YENDADA,VISAKHAPATNAM - 530045. 2. SHAIK HAKEEM, S/O. SHAIK SURI SAHEB,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,R/O. D.NO.22-110-9, DAYAL NAGAR,CHAITANYCI SCHOOL BACKSIDE,VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer,Prakashnagar Urban Police Station,Rajamahendravaram, East G Represented by the Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. K J Prem Kumar 2. JOSEPH PREM KUMAR KUMMARIKUNTA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.97 of 2026 of Prakash Nagar Urban Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143(1), 144(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’), 3(1), 4(1) and 5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. 2. Mr.K.J.Prem Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners were not present at the scene of the alleged raid and were elsewhere at the relevant time. It is contended that they have been falsely implicated and have not committed any offence, much less the alleged offences. The Petitioners are law‑abiding citizens with deep roots in society. There are no adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioners. They undertake to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court if pre‑arrest bail is granted. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are entrepreneurs engaged in business expansion and have no intention of indulging in any unlawful activity such as flesh trade. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still at a nascent stage and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is further urged that if the Petitioner is granted 3 anticipatory bail, there is a strong likelihood of her absconding, evading the process of law. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record, the allegation against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 is that they had organized a brothel under the guise of a spa centre, lured three victims from Delhi, Nagaland and Manipur, and coerced them into flesh trade. The allegations against the Petitioners are specific in nature. The police arrested the other accused by preparing a mediators’ report, wherein the signatures of the victims were also obtained. The victims stated that due to their deplorable financial condition and the pressure exerted by the Petitioners, they were compelled to act at the behest of the Petitioners. 6. The grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners, is neither a license for commission of serious offence nor a shield or protection for having committed grave offences, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2 . The remedy of pre‑arrest bail, being an extraordinary and discretionary relief, cannot be granted to the Petitioners against whom specific overt acts are attributed in respect of heinous offences. Therefore, request for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 at this juncture does not appear to be convincing or reasonable. There are no merits in the 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2020) 5 SCC 1 4 petition. Hence, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 30.07.2026 PRA 5 44 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6137 of 2026 Date: 30.07.2026 PRA