CRLP/2204/2026 of Bogireddy Murali Mohan Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March 2026

ORDER:-

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/Accused No.4, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.5 of 2026 on the file of B. Mattam Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.01.2026 at about 3:30 PM, in Room No.2D of Sri Virat Deluxe Residence Lodge, B. Mattam Town & Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, Accused No.1 allegedly procured victims for prostitution and was running prostitution activities in the said lodge with the assistance of Accused Nos.3 to 5. Based on the panchanama, the present crime was registered.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner is not involved in the day-to-day management of the lodge and is carrying on business at Hyderabad. It is further contended that there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to the petitioner, and his implication is solely based on the alleged confession of co- accused, which is not admissible in evidence. It is also submitted that the investigation is substantially completed, other accused are already arrested, and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, he seeks grant of anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the investigation is still pending, and the petitioner is absconding. It is further submitted that granting anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper the investigation and there is a every likelihood of the petitioner not cooperating with the investigating agency.

6. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the offences alleged include Section 143(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which prescribes a punishment of not less than seven years. Though the other offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act carry lesser punishment, the gravity of the allegations cannot be ignored at this stage. It is also to be noted that the investigation is still in progress and only a few witnesses have been examined so far. The petitioner is shown as absconding, and his role, if any, in the management or activities of the lodge is yet to be fully ascertained during the course of investigation. At this stage, it cannot be conclusively held that the petitioner has no connection with the alleged activities merely on the ground that he was not involved in day-to-day management. The contentions raised by the petitioner require thorough investigation and cannot be adjudicated at this preliminary stage. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to surrender before the concerned Magistrate and file an application for regular bail within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such filing, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made in this order, and dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date: 24.03.2026 KKV