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.3, in connection with Crime No.36 of 2026 on the file of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate 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. Heard Sri P.V.Venkata Ravi Sankar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State / Respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is no way connected with the alleged Spa business. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case based on the confessional statement of Accused No.1. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner has not received any amount out of the alleged prostitution. It is submitted that the material part of the investigation is completed. Petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the investigation is pending for examination of some more witnesses and collection of CCTV footage of the scene of offence. There are no grounds to grant anticipatory bail at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the Petitioner relate to immoral trafficking activities allegedly carried on under the guise of a Spa business. Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated based on the confession of Accused No.1 and that he has no connection with the alleged business or monetary transactions, such contentions cannot be examined in detail at this stage. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has specifically submitted that investigation is still in progress and that examination of further witnesses and collection of CCTV footage are yet to be completed. Considering the stage of investigation and the nature of allegations, this Court is of the view that granting anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper the investigation and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner may be necessary for effective investigation. In that view, this Court is not inclined to exercise the discretionary relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the Petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.