CRLP/15203/2026 of R. Narender Vs The State of Telangana on 24 September 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.325 of 2026 on the file of Malakpet Police Station, Hyderabad, facing accusations under Sections 143(2), 144(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. (for short, ‘ITP Act’).

3. Heard Mr.P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.09.2026, acting upon credible information, the complainant/Sub-Inspector of Police, along with his team, conducted a raid at S.S. Beauty & Spa, situated at Saleemnagar Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad. During the raid, accused Nos. 3 and 4 were found present along with three women, who were described by the prosecution as victims. During the course of the inspection, certain articles, including a swipe machine, condoms, mobile phones, and cash, were seized. The enquiries revealed that, the petitioner is that he was the organizer and running the said spa. Thereafter, upon submission of the report, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the implication of the petitioner as an accused is based solely on the alleged confessional statement of a co-accused, which, in law, has no evidentiary value. Learned counsel would further contend that, even according to the prosecution, the complainant/officer who conducted the raid was only a Sub-Inspector of Police. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of Section 15 of the ITP Act, it is only a Special Police Officer/Trafficking

Police Officer, not below the rank of Inspector of Police, who is competent to conduct a search, with or without a warrant.

5.2. Learned counsel would further place reliance upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.8140 of 2025, wherein, upon consideration of the statutory scheme under Sections 13 and 15 of the ITP Act, the proceedings were quashed on the ground that the complainant therein was not an authorized officer. Learned counsel submits that the principle laid down in the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as well. At the same time, the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In view of the aforesaid alleged fundamental deficiency in the prosecution case, learned counsel prays that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the bail petition and submitted that the inspection conducted by the complainant revealed the commission of offences under the provisions of the ITP Act and that the investigation is still pending. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly admits that the officer who conducted the inspection and lodged the complaint is only a Sub-Inspector of Police. He submits that the inspection was nevertheless conducted pursuant to the instructions and authorization of the competent authority. On the said basis, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

8. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he organized the objectionable activities in the spa run by him, thereby attracting the provisions of the ITP Act. The petitioner contends that his implication is essentially based on the statement of a co-accused; that he was neither present at the premises at the time of the raid nor was any incriminating material recovered from his possession.

9. The petitioner further questions the competence of the officer who conducted the search. Section 13 of the ITP Act contemplates the appointment of a Special Police Officer for dealing with offences under the Act and, under Section 13(2), requires such officer to be not below the rank of Inspector of Police. Section 15 confers the power to conduct a search without warrant, in the circumstances specified therein, upon the Special Police Officer or Trafficking Police Officer, as the case may be. Thus, a warrantless search under the Act must be conducted by an officer duly empowered under the statutory scheme.

10. In the present case, the material placed before this Court does not disclose any notification, order or authorization designating the complainant, admittedly a Sub-Inspector of Police, as a Special Police Officer or Trafficking Police Officer competent to exercise powers under Sections 13 and 15 of the ITP Act. Mere instructions or authorization from a superior police officer, by themselves, do not establish such statutory designation. The issue, therefore, concerns the statutory competence of the officer who exercised the power of search.

11. This aspect assumes significance in view of the judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Sneha Priya v. State of Telangana, Crl.P.No.8140 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025, wherein, upon consideration of Sections 13 and 15 of the ITP Act, it was held that a Sub-Inspector who had not been designated as a Special Police Officer was not competent to conduct the search and seizure contemplated under the Act, notwithstanding directions or authorization from a superior police officer.

12. The petitioner also relies upon the limited evidentiary value of the statement of a co-accused. A confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence against another accused and, where legally capable of consideration, ordinarily requires independent evidence lending assurance to the prosecution case. Here, the petitioner is sought to be connected with the alleged activities primarily through the statement of a co-accused, without any assertion that he was present at the premises or that incriminating material was recovered from his possession. These circumstances assume significance particularly in the absence, at this stage, of material establishing the complainant’s statutory designation and competence under Sections 13 and 15 of the ITP Act.

13. Though the allegations arise under a special enactment and the investigation is pending, the statutory safeguards governing the exercise of powers under the ITP Act cannot be disregarded. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the absence of material presently establishing the complainant’s statutory competence to conduct the search, the nature of the material relied upon to implicate the petitioner, and his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail merits favourable consideration, subject to appropriate conditions.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/accused No.2 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Malakpet Police Station, Hyderabad, on or before 09.10.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station

House Officer shall release him on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer. (B) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of eight

(08) weeks from the date of his release on bail or until the filing of the final result, whichever is earlier. (C) The petitioner shall remain available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate fully with the investigation. (D) The petitioner shall furnish his complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation. (E) The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (F) The petitioner shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

(G) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

15. It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 24.09.2026 CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.15203 OF 2026

DATE: 24.09.2026

CHS