IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 24.01.2025 Arun ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.317 dated 09.11.2024 registered under Sections 3(2)a, 3(2)b, 4, 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sections 61, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Urban Estate, Hisar.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 09.11.2024 Harinder Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Hisar received a secret information to the effect that owner and manager of 03 DAY SPA Center, near Jindal Chowk, Hisar in connivance with each other are indulging in the prostitution business in the said SPA Center. On the basis of said information, a raiding party was constituted and ESI Satbir Singh and Constable Kapil were prepared as bogus customers and sent in the said SPA Center alongwith six currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each. After some time, agreed signal was received from the bogus customers ESI Satbir Singh and Constable Kapil, upon which police party entered in the said SPA Center and found bogus customer Constable Kapil standing in a room with a girl. The second bogus customer ESI Satbir Singh was found standing on the second floor of SPA Center alongwith three girls. Co-accused Sahil on getting opportunity, fled away from the spot. On search, total thirteen girls were found in the SPA Center. On checking of the drawer of counter table, total Rs.2000/- including two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each, which were given to bogus customers by DSP Harinder Kumar, were recovered and all the recovered currency notes were taken into police possession. Subsequently, FIR under Sections 3(2)a, 3(2)b, 4, 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act, 1956 and section 61, 3(5) of BNS Act was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as he is not the owner of 03 DAY SPA and the petitioner has taken the abovesaid premises on lease from landlord, namely, Bharat Lal Soni. He further contended that neither petitioner was present at the spot at the time of alleged raid nor he has any knowledge about the alleged offence. He further contended that co-accused of the petitioner Sahil, Manager of the SPA Centre has already been released on regular bail. He further contended that nothing incriminating is to be recovered from the petitioner and he is ready to join the investigation.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner being a habitual offender as two more FIRs under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 are pending against him. She further contended that petitioner along with co-accused Sahil was running a brothel in the SPA Centre. She further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 171, power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his/her liberty.

7. There are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner that he along with M