logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1810 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 7891 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Parties : Devalla Siva Parvathi Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Amaravati
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Hemanth Kumar Venna, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 16-09-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 -
Judgment :-

1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the petitioner/Accused No.2, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.360 of 2026 of Patamata Police Station, NTR Commissionerate, Vijayawada, NTR District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(a), 7(1)(a) of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956, and Sections 14(2) and 143(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Mr.Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was not there at the time of the alleged offence. There are no similar adverse antecedents against the petitioner. The petitioner was implicated based on the confession of Accused No.1 and other victims. The petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the petitioner is a female, is a law-abiding citizen, has a fixed abode and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting pre-arrest bail.

3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposes the petition and submits that the accusations against the petitioner are well founded. She is one of the organizers of the brothel, which was being operated in an apartment. Investigation is still pending. He further submits that the allegations disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner and apprehends that, if granted pre-arrest bail, the petitioner may influence the witnesses or hamper the investigation. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab ((1980) 2 SCC 565), has observed that while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to exercise its discretion judiciously, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The nature and gravity of the accusation, the precise role attributed to the applicant, the material collected during investigation, and the likelihood of the applicant interfering with the investigation are relevant considerations and has cautioned against importing rigid or inflexible conditions into the exercise of power relating to anticipatory bail.In terms of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. ((2020) 5 SCC 1), the Court, while considering whether anticipatory bail ought to be granted or refused, is required to be guided, inter alia, by the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the applicant and the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. As seen from the record, the petitioner is a female, aged about 32 years. She is arraigned as Accused No.2 in this case. Of course, there are similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with Accused No.1, has been organizing a brothel in an apartment. They are collecting Rs.3,000/- from every person who approaches for brothel. The role of the petitioner came into light based on a confession given by Accused No.1 and the victims. The victims are LWs.1 to 13. They have given statements in unison that the petitioner/Accused No.2 is one of the organizers of the brothel. So far, eight witnesses are examined. Investigation is still pending. Accusations against the petitioner are well founded.Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, as it would amount to giving a shield, protection or licence to the petitioner against whom specific allegations are levelled.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.2. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal