CRLP/15243/2026 of Guguloth Santhosh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana on 23 September 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as the accused No.2 in Crime No.742 of 2026 on the file of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport Police Station, Hyderabad, facing accusations under Sections 143(2), 144(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of PIT Act.

3. Heard Mr.Rudra Thej Pottala, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Inspector of Police, acting on credible information, conducted a surprise inspection at Hotel Grand Vista, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. During the inspection of Room Nos. 106 and 203, accused No. 3, accused No. 1, and the victim were found therein. Upon enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner herein/accused No. 2 is the owner of the said hotel and that accused No. 3, who was working as a Receptionist, had suggested to the petitioner/hotel owner that, in view of the hotel facing poor business, the rooms could be provided for prostitution so as to earn additional income easily and within a short period. It is alleged that, for facilitating such activities, an amount of Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- per hour was collected, depending upon the circumstances, and that the petitioner and accused No. 3 had agreed to share the commission between them. Thereafter, accused No. 3 allegedly facilitated prostitution activities by providing rooms to persons organising such activities and thereby generated additional income for the hotel. Based on the said report, a crime came to be registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the petitioner is engaged in a legitimate business and was unaware of the activities allegedly being conducted in the hotel and of the involvement of the Receptionist/accused No. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner was neither present at the time of the raid nor was any material incriminating him recovered or otherwise brought to light during the raid. Learned counsel further submits that the entire case against the petitioner rests upon the alleged statement of admission made by accused No. 3, which is inadmissible in evidence or, at the least, constitutes a weak basis for implicating the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. It is further contended that, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, there are no specific overt acts attributable to the petitioner so as to make out the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submits that the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence came to light during the course of investigation, based upon the statement of the co-accused. It is submitted that, according to the material collected thus far, the petitioner used to receive his share of amounts by permitting the alleged illegal activities/prostitution to be carried on in his hotel. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the investigation is still in progress and that the presence of the petitioner may be required for the purpose of conducting an effective investigation. On these grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition.

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

8. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that he engaged accused No.3, the Receptionist in his hotel, to facilitate prostitution by providing rooms to persons organising such activities and sharing the additional amounts allegedly received there from. The petitioner, however, contends that he was unaware of such activities and was carrying on a legitimate hotel business.

9. At the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact as at trial. The power under Section 482 of BNSS is discretionary and must be exercised having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the material collected, the possibility of his fleeing from justice or influencing the investigation, and other relevant circumstances. As held in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, and reiterated in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, such discretion cannot be governed by rigid or inflexible formulae. The necessity of custodial interrogation is a relevant consideration, though not by itself determinative, while balancing the requirements of investigation against the petitioner's right to personal liberty.

10. In the present case, even according to the prosecution, there is no specific allegation that the petitioner himself trafficked or exploited any person or directly participated in the alleged prostitution activities. The allegation against him is essentially that he permitted or induced accused No.3 to provide hotel rooms to persons organising such activities and derived an additional financial benefit therefrom. The specific role attributed to the petitioner is therefore relevant in assessing the necessity of his custodial interrogation. This observation is confined to the present application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the ultimate culpability of the petitioner.

11. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the material presently available, and the absence of any demonstrated necessity for his custodial interrogation, this Court is of the considered view that custodial arrest is not shown to be indispensable for the investigation. The petitioner has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and comply with such conditions as may be imposed. The interests of investigation can, therefore, be safeguarded by directing him to cooperate with the investigating agency and remain available as and when required. In this view, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions. (A) The petitioner/accused No.2 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Rajiv Gandhi International Airport Police Station, Hyderabad, on or before 07.10.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release his 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 between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of ten (10) 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.

13. 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.

_________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 23.09.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.15243 OF 2026

DATE: 23.09.2026

mmr