IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

225 Date of decision : 11.11.2025 Dilip ........Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. R.S. Attri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, D.A.G., Punjab.

*****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.117 dated 10.06.2025 registered under Sections 3 & 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the

1956 Act’) at Police Station City Sangrur, District Sangrur.

2. Status report by way of an affidavit of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Sangrur, District Sangrur, on behalf of the respondent-State, filed in the Court today is taken on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the instant FIR was registered on the basis of information sent by Inspector Manpreet Singh, who stated that for the purpose of patrolling and checking of suspicious persons, he was present at BSNL Park, Sangrur. At about 5:00 P.M., a secret information was received to the effect that one Amit Kumar is running a Spa Center in the name of Fairy Tales on the third floor of HRD Complex situated on Nankiana Road, Sangrur, where Amit Kumar had employed Dilip (the present petitioner) as Manager to look after the work of Spa Center, wherein they call girls/women belonging to poor and vulnerable families and serve them to the potential customers and in this manner, under the guise of a spa center, the accused are running a prostitution racket. They are also putting the poor and vulnerable girls/women into trafficking or trading for the purpose of sexual exploitation or prostitution. Considering the information as reliable, he sent Ruqa to the Police Station and conducted the raid at the Spa Center, where boys and girls were apprehended.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner was merely a salaried employee working as Manager in the Spa Centre and has not committed any offence. He further submits that there is complete violation of Section 15(1) & 15(2) of the 1956 Act and Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. as neither any special police officer/trafficking police officer was associated in the search process nor two or more respectable inhabitants of the localities were associated at the time of search. He further submits that four victim girls, who have been examined before the Trial Court as PW-1 to PW-4, have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been turned hostile. In their testimonies recorded before the Trial Court, all the four victims have stated that they have no personal knowledge about the facts of the present case. They were never joined by the police during the investigation and they have never suffered any statement in this case to the police.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 11.06.2025 and he is not involved in any other case. He also submits that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court and now the case is fixed for 313 statement on 19.11.2025. The trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude and therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner behind the bars.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the averments made in the status report, has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He further submits that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court and the trial may be concluded very soon. He has also filed custody certificate dated 10.11.2025 in the Court which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is be