CRLP/14827/2026 of Pamula Krishna Vs The State of Telangana on 24 September 2026

ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner- accused No.2 in connection with Cr.No.586 of 2026 on the file of Borabanda, Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 144 (2) BNS and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

2. Heard Sri S.M. Saifullah, learned counsel for the petitioner- A2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent–State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-A2 submits that the prosecution case substantially relies upon the alleged voluntary confession of the petitioner-A2 recorded by the Police during the raid. Such alleged confession being a statement made by the petitioner to the Police while in custody cannot by itself constitute substantive evidence against the petitioner-A2. Ingredients of Section 3 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, are not prima facie established and the ingredients of Section 4 of PITA Act are also not made out. There is a serious and substantial legal infirmity concerning the competency of the officer who conducted raid search and seizure. The FIR itself records that upon receipt of the information the concerned officer obtained an NOC from ACP and thereafter personally conducted the raid. Section 13 of the PITA Act contemplates the appointment of a Special Police officer not below the rank of an Inspector for dealing with offences under the said Act. In the alternative, the investigation is completed and A1 is enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2026. Counsel in support of his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Sneha Priya v. State of Telangana1.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the role played by the petitioner-A2 is clearly depicted in the remand case diary.

5. K. Mukund Naik, SI has lodged a report before P.S., Borbanda on 02.09.2026, it is stated in the complaint that he received the credible information that a SPA Center under the name and style as EVA Beauty and SPA are allowing men to engage in sexual intercourse with women. Believing the information to be true and authentic he immediately presented the information before ACP, S.R. Division, Hyderabad. The ACP issued a Memo authorizing him to conduct a raid on the premises and he secured the presence of the mediators and entered Plot No.58, Flat No.205, 2nd Floor, RAMS enclave, Erragadda, Hyderabad and raided the premises at 15.30 hours. Further Sub Organizer by name Krishna, voluntarily confessed his guilt that from the past three months he is working for salary under Ajay, who is running a brotherl house in the name of EVA beauty and SPA. Basing on the said complaint, FIR came to be registered.

1 Crl.P.No.8140 of 2025 dated 08.09.2025, of the High Court for the State of Telangana.

6. Petitioner-A2 is arrested 02.09.2026 at 17.00 hours and is produced before the concerned Magistrate on 09.06.2026 for remand. Since, then he is in jail. Remand Case Diary shows that a notice under Section 35 (3) of BNSS was issued to A3-K.S. Anand on 02.09.2026. A1-Ajay was shown absconding in the remand case diary.

7. A1-Ajay obtained anticipatory bail from this Court vide Crl.P.No.14810 of 2026 on 21.09.2026. This Court observed in Paragraph 13, which reads as under: “13. Though the allegations relate to offences 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 apparent absence of material establishing the complainant's statutory competence to conduct the search, the nature of the material relied upon for implicating 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”.

8. In Sneha Priya1, this Court observed in paragraph No.22, which reads as under: “22. The acts of the SI, a raid on the premises, search and seizure carried out suffer from material irregularity and illegality. The crime registered in furtherance of such acts is unsustainable, proceedings are liable to be quashed. The office of Director General of Police for the State of Telangana is requested to take necessary steps to get the Special Officer(s) appointed for the purposes of the act CrL.O.P.(MD)No.18066 of 2022 and Cr.M.P. (MD) Nos.12051 and 12052 of 2022

dated 21.09.2023 JAK, J (PITA Act) for specified area(s). The Special Officer shall not be below the rank of Inspector of Police. Needless to state that the office of Director General of Police shall get the Special Officer(s) appointed by way of notifications (by Government) as per the provisions of the Act, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”.

9. The primary contention of the petitioner counsel is that the search and seizure made by the complainant is an S.I of Police, he is not a Special Officer under the PITA Act. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the said aspect. Remand case diary goes to show that the respondent has examined altogether 15 witnesses in support of the case and major portion of the investigation is completed and detaining the petitioner-accused No.2 further in judicial custody will not serve the purpose. Hence, petitioner-accused No.2 is also entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner-accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. ii. The petitioner-accused shall appear before the concerned SHO between 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., on every Sunday and Wednesday for a period of eight (8)

weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required. iii. The petitioner-accused shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.(presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS). iv. The petitioner-accused shall not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or induce any of the prosecution witnesses. v. It is made clear that if any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of the bail.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. __________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J Date: 24.09.2026 prat

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14827 of 2026 Date: 24.09.2026 prat