CRLP/15167/2026 of Parumala Krishna Reddy, 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.1 in Crime No.1227 of 2026 on the file of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, facing accusations under Sections 143, 144 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. M.Shivaram Prasad Rao, 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 10.09.2026, acting on credible information, the complainant/Sub-Inspector of Police, along with his team, conducted a raid at Sri Venkata Balaji Residency (Oyo Hotel), Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Accused Nos.2 to 5 were found at the premises along with four women and two other women, who were described as victims by the prosecution. Certain articles, including condoms and mobile phones, were seized. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was the organizer and owns said spa. Following a complaint, the present crime was registered.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner’s implication rests solely on the confession/statement of a co-accused, which has no substantive evidentiary value against him. It is further contended that the raid was conducted without a warrant by a Sub-Inspector of Police, whereas Section 15 of the ITP Act empowers only a Special Police Officer/Trafficking Police Officer, not below the rank of Inspector, to conduct such search. Thus, the complainant lacked statutory competence to conduct the search.

5.2. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.8140 of 2025, wherein, considering Sections 13 and 15 of the ITP Act, proceedings were quashed on the ground that the complainant was not an authorized officer. It is submitted that the same principle applies herein. The petitioner, however, undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court, and therefore seeks anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that the inspection disclosed offences under the ITP Act and that the investigation is pending. He, however, fairly admits that the complainant who conducted the inspection and lodged the complaint is a Sub-Inspector of Police. He submits that the inspection was conducted pursuant to the instructions and authorization of the competent authority and, on that basis, seeks dismissal of the petition.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material 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 was not present at the premises at the time of the raid, and no incriminating material was recovered from his possession. His implication is principally based on the statement of a co- accused.

9. Section 13 of the ITP Act provides for appointment of a Special Police Officer to deal with offences under the Act and, under Section 13(2), such officer shall not be below the rank of Inspector of Police. Section 15 confers the power of warrantless search, in the circumstances specified therein, upon the Special Police Officer or Trafficking Police Officer. Thus, such statutory power must be exercised by an officer duly empowered under the Act.

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 do not, by themselves, establish such statutory designation. The issue therefore concerns the very competence of the officer who exercised the statutory power.

11. This assumes significance in view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in Sneha Priya v. State of Telangana, Crl.P.No.8140 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025, wherein it was held, upon consideration of Sections 13 and 15

of the ITP Act, that a Sub-Inspector not 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. These circumstances assume significance alongside the absence of material establishing the complainant’s statutory designation under Sections 13 and 15 of the ITP Act.

13. Though the allegations concern offences under a special enactment and the investigation is pending, the statutory safeguards governing exercise of powers under the ITP Act cannot be disregarded. Having regard to the apparent absence of material 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 appropriate conditions, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail deserves positive consideration, subject to appropriate conditions.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/accused No.1 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, 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.15167 OF 2026

DATE: 24.09.2026

CHS