1. Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. By means of the present application, the applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0061 of 2026, registered at Police Station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the F.I.R. has been lodged against the present applicant and three other co-accused alleging that on 05.04.2026, acting on the directions of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar, a police team conducted a special drive under the code name "Prahar" against the illegal activities allegedly being carried on in certain spa centres situated in Metropolis Mall, Rudrapur. It is allegd that during the raid, several persons allegedly attempted to flee from the spa centres, however, six women were found inside one of the spa centres and, during the course of inquiry, they allegedly disclosed that they had been induced by the owner/management of the spa centre to engage in prostitution.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is neither the owner nor the proprietor of the alleged spa centre operating in Metropolis Mall; that, the licence of the said establishment does not stand in the name of the present applicant; that, the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of the alleged raid and has been implicated solely on the basis of the statement of one of the alleged victims, without any independent material connecting him with the alleged offences.

6. Learned counsel would further submit that no incriminating article or objectionable material has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, nor was he found in any objectionable or compromising situation during the alleged raid; that, the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 has not been complied with by the raiding party. Placing reliance upon Section 15(1) of the Act, learned counsel submits that the search was conducted without obtaining a search warrant and without recording reasons in writing showing the existence of reasonable grounds for believing that obtaining a warrant would cause undue delay or defeat the object of the search; that, the search memo does not disclose compliance with the mandatory safeguards contemplated under the said provision, thereby rendering the search and seizure legally doubtful.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant would also submit that the alleged search was conducted inside Metropolis Mall, a public commercial complex situated in the heart of the city, where several shopkeepers and members of the public were available, yet no independent witness was associated with the search proceedings; the applicant has no criminal antecedents; that, he has falsely been implicated; that, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence.

8. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application. However, upon instructions, he does not dispute that no warrant had been issued against the applicant prior to the institution of the present proceedings. He seeks time to file a detailed counter affidavit placing the stand of the State on record.

9. In the interest of justice, four weeks' time is granted to the learned State counsel to file counter affidavit/objections.

10. List this matter thereafter.

11. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations, the material available on record, the instructions furnished by the Investigating Officer indicating that the applicant was not found present at the place of occurrence during the alleged raid, the absence of any recovery from the applicant, and the plea regarding prima facie non- compliance with the mandatory safeguards contained in Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the prima facie view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of interim anticipatory bail till the next date of listing.

12. Accordingly, it is directed that the investigation shall proceed independently, fairly and strictly in accordance with law and shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. However, in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid Case Crime/F.I.R., he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail till the next date of listing on his furnishing a personal bond along with two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:

          (i) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

          (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating Agency;

          (iii) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Court concerned;

          (iv) The applicant shall not misuse the liberty granted by this order and shall maintain peace and good conduct during the period of interim protection;

          (v) In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, it shall be open to the State/prosecution to seek modification or cancellation of interim anticipatory bail in accordance with law.