APHC010420702026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6925/2026 Between: 1. DIMILI RAJA MANIKANTA, S/O LAXMI NARAYANA,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC MANAGER AT BLINKIT,R/O D. NO. C-72, NATHAVARAM VILLAGE, NATHAVARAM MANDAL,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-531115. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati,Through SHO, Dwaraka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. P NANILU NAIDU 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 Petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.77 of 2026, dated 16.07.2026 of Dwaraka Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143(3), 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 Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the PIT Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.07.2026 at 20.45 hours, the Inspector of Police, Dwaraka Police Station, on credible information from the Task Force, conducted a raid at SS Naturels Unisex Saloon and Spa, Visakhapatnam, where prostitution activities were allegedly being carried on under the guise of massage services; during the raid, a male customer and a female therapist were found in compromising circumstances, accused persons including the Petitioner/Owner were apprehended and confessed to running prostitution by recruiting female therapists through online advertisements and compelling them to engage in sexual activities with customers, victim women were rescued who stated that they were induced into prostitution due to low salaries and promise of higher commissions, and several incriminating articles 3 including mobile phones, Paytm scanner and spa documents were seized in the presence of mediators, whereupon the case was registered under Sections 143(3), 144(2) read with 3(5) of ‘the BNS’ and Sections 3(1), 4(1), and 5(1)(a) of ‘the PIT Act’. 3. Mr.P.Nanilu Naidu, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated as Accused No.1 in Crime No.77 of 2026 and no specific overt acts are attributed against him. The Petitioner is only the owner of the premises which was leased out to Accused Nos.2 and 3, and was not involved in the day‑to‑day operations. The FIR and complaint are vague and the essential ingredients of the alleged offences under ‘the BNS’ and ‘the PIT Act’ are not attracted against him. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 4. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre‑arrest bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still in progress and several material witnesses remain to be examined; releasing the Petitioner at this stage would seriously hamper the investigation and enable him to abscond; custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is essential to unearth the full extent of the offence and to trace the financial transactions involved; the allegations are grave in nature, involving 4 exploitation of women under the guise of a spa, and therefore, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 4. Mr.K.Lenin Babu, learned legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2, argued on the same lines as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned legal aid counsel for the Respondent No.2. Perused the record. 6. On perusal of the record, there are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner. It is alleged that the Petitioner is the owner of the spa wherein the raid was conducted. Under the guise of running a spa centre, female therapists were recruited through online advertisements and compelled them to engage in prostitution with customers. During the raid, a male customer and a female therapist were found in compromising circumstances. Victim women were rescued. They stated that they were induced into prostitution due to low salaries and promise of higher commissions. Several incriminating articles including mobile phones, Paytm scanner and spa documents were seized in the presence of mediators, thereby prima facie establishing the Petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offences. 7. In view of the specific accusation attributed against the Petitioner/Accused No.1, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to 5 the Petitioner, as it would amount to giving a shield, or protection or license to the Petitioner, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. 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: 25.08.2026 PRA 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 (2020) 5 SCC 1 6 161 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6925 of 2026 Date: 25.08.2026 PRA