: ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No.430 of 2026 of KPHB Police Station, Kukatpally. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 144 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of PITA Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.04.2026 at about 3:00 p.m., the complainant, while on duty at KPHB Police Station, received credible information that some persons were running a prostitution racket at Prime Time Hotel, Sri Sai Nagar, KPHB, Hyderabad. After informing the superior officers and obtaining permission, the complainant secured mediators and proceeded to the hotel along with police staff and a woman constable. During the raid, one male person attempted to flee and was apprehended. On checking Room No.106, the police found one man and one woman inside the room in a compromising position. On enquiry, they disclosed their identities as Devendar Reddy and Priyanka. The person apprehended outside identified himself as Ashok and allegedly confessed that he was arranging women for prostitution through contacts made on social media platforms, booking hotel rooms, collecting money from customers, and sharing payments with others involved. It was further revealed that Priyanka had been brought to the hotel for prostitution and Devendar Reddy had come as a customer. During the raid, the police seized two mobile phones, ten condoms, and cash of Rs.500/-, and thereafter registered the present case against the accused.

3. Heard Sri Kavadi Naresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner/A.4 is a mechanic by profession who came to Hyderabad for livelihood and is working as a private employee, and that he has no connection with the alleged offence. It is submitted that the petitioner was not present at the time of raid, no money transaction took place between the victim and the petitioner, and he has been falsely implicated merely on the statement of victim by showing him as an organizer. Learned counsel further contended that the raid, search and seizure were conducted by a Sub-Inspector of Police, whereas under Sections 13 and 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, such powers can be exercised only by a Special Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police, and therefore the entire proceedings suffer from lack of jurisdiction, material irregularity and illegality. It is also submitted that the FIR does not disclose any specific overt act against the petitioner and the principal allegations are only against A.1 to 3. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 01.04.2026. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the petitioner/A.4 is involved in the present offence and was part of the prostitution racket being operated along with the other accused. It is submitted that during the raid conducted by police, incriminating material was seized and the statements of the victim and other accused disclosed the role of petitioner as one of the organizers facilitating the illegal activities. He also contended that the investigation is in progress and the role of each accused is being ascertained. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of his influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or absconding. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the allegations against the petitioner disclose his invol