:ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A.2 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.81 of 2026 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143(2), 144(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of PITA Act.

2. The facts of the case are that on 10.02.2026 at about 4:10 PM, the de facto complainant received credible information that accused Mahirun was running a brothel house at Gayatri Hills, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, by exploiting women for prostitution. After obtaining authorization from the Assistant Commissioner of Police and securing mediators, the police conducted a raid at the premises at about 4:45 PM. During the raid, accused Mahirun was found managing the brothel, and one woman, Thotada Nagamani, was found in a bedroom with a male customer, Gullapally Sridhar. The victim woman was rescued and handed over to women police staff. The customer stated that he had contacted Mahirun through the Locanto website and WhatsApp and agreed to pay Rs.2,000/- for sexual services. During enquiry, Mahirun confessed that she had been running the brothel for the last five months for monetary gain. Hence, case was registered against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Keshav Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no direct role in the alleged offences. It is contended that his name has been included only on the basis of alleged statements without any independent corroboration. The main allegations, as per the case diary, are against A.1 relating to organizing prostitution activities, and there is no material to show that the petitioner was running or managing the brothel. It is further submitted that petitioner was not present at the scene at the time of the alleged raid, and the remand report shows that only A.1 and A.4 were apprehended, while the petitioner was shown as absconding. No incriminating material, cash, mobile phone, or any other object was recovered from his possession. The alleged involvement of the petitioner is based only on statements that he facilitated contact through phone, which is not supported by any technical evidence such as call records, chats, or financial transactions. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and shall abide by any conditions imposed by this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. A.1 and A.2 are procuring the victims, luring them and forcing them into this business by giving handsome amount to them. A.1 has taken the flat in the name of petitioner and running brothel house. Hence, petitioner is also the main organizer of this business, as such, he is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material placed on record, the petitioner herein is arrayed as A.2 and he is the co-organizer, while A.1 is the main organizer of the brothel house. Considering the severity of allegations against the petitioner and the nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.