Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/3174/2026 of SHAIK ASIYA Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 27 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3174/2026 Between: SHAIK ASIYA, W/O. ASLAM, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O.
APHC010206242026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3174/2026
Between:
SHAIK ASIYA, W/O. ASLAM, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.37-1-157
ISLAMPETA, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
HIGH
COURT
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT
ARNARAVATI THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ONGOLE
TALUKA POLICE STATION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. K KOUTILYA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner / Accused No.2, in connection with Crime No.273 of 2025 on the file of Ongole Taluka Police Station, which is registered for the offences under Sections 143(1), 143(2), 144(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.05.2025 at about 15:00 hours, upon receiving credible information, the police reached a house at Acharivari Street, Dibbal Road, Ongole, where two women sitting outside attempted to flee on seeing the police but were apprehended. On enquiry, A1 disclosed that she, along with A2, had brought a girl and was running prostitution from the house. It is further alleged that A1 and A3 stated that A2 fled from the spot upon noticing the arrival of the police.
3. Heard Sri K.Koutilya, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State / Respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of alleged confession statements of co-accused, without any direct involvement or presence at the scene of offence. It is contended that there are no specific or grave allegations against her and that she has a fixed residence, and there is no possibility of absconding or tampering with evidence. It is further submitted that Accused No.1 in the present case has already been granted bail and that substantial investigation is completed. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner and her involvement has come to light during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is absconding and her custodial interrogation is necessary to find out the full facts of the case. It is further submitted that bail granted to
Accused No.1 cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated, it is seen that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner and her involvement has come to light during the course of investigation. Further, the Petitioner is stated to be absconding and her custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for effective investigation of the case. The contention of the Petitioner that Accused No.1 has been granted bail cannot be a ground to extend the same relief to the Petitioner, as the role attributed to her is required to be considered separately. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:28.04.2026 Dinesh
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3174 of 2026
DATE:28.04.2026
Dinesh