In cases of human trafficking and brothel organization, the gravity of the offence necessitates custodial interrogation, and the accused's absence from the crime scene does not automatically entitle them to pre-arrest bail.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.422 of 2026 before the Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 144 of BNS and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PIT Act)

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 13.03.2026, the defacto complainant, lodged a report before the police stating that at about 16:00 hours, while he was on duty, he received credible information that certain persons were running prostitution activities under the guise of a spa at The Glam Factor Beauty and Wellness Spa, Madhapur. Upon obtaining necessary permission, the complainant, along with staff and mediators, proceeded to the said premises and conducted a raid and found A1, owner of the spa and a man and a woman in a room and were apprehended. Upon enquiry, A1 admitted that he, along with another person, was running prostitution activities under the cover of the spa for financial gain and further revealed that customers were charged Rs.6,000/- per person, and the women were paid Rs.30,000/- per month. Three women were identified as being engaged in such activities. A panchanama was conducted in the presence of mediators, and cash, mobile phones, and other incriminating material were seized from the accused and the customer. Basing on the same, Police registered a case for the above mentioned offences.

3. Heard Sri Bandi Venkat Sai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the said crime and has no connection with the alleged crime. He further submitted that all the material witnesses have already been examined and, therefore, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence and the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature, and that the role of the petitioner requires thorough investigation. Therefore, at this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 and the allegation against the petitioner is that he is the organizer of the brothel house, as allegations are against the petitioner are severe in nature, though the petitioner was not present at the scene of offence that is no the ground to consider the anticipatory bail petition in a human trafficking cases. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Mi