Pallisetty Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.152 of 2025 of III Town Police

¶21

Station, Visakhapatnam, registered for the alleged offences punishable under

¶22

Sections 143(3) and 144(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

¶23

2023 and 3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant

¶25

Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶26

2

¶27

Sri P. Pavan Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this is a second pre-arrest bail petition. He submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused based on the confession of the other accused. The petitioner has not committed any offence and was not present at the scene when the police apprehended the other accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family and is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may impose for granting bail. He has a fixed place of residence and there is no likelihood of his absconding. As the investigation is now completed, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, he prays that the petitioner be enlarged on pre-arrest bail.

¶28

Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that this is the second anticipatory bail application, which is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu¹ . It is submitted that the petitioner was running a spa centre wherein prostitution was being carried out by luring innocent women. Hence, she prays that the present application be dismissed in the interest of justice and to safeguard the sanctity of the investigative process.

¶29

Indeed, this Court, in Crl.P. No. 9086 of 2025 dated 10.09.2025, dismissed the first anticipatory bail application on the ground that specific overt acts were attributed to the petitioner and the investigation was at a nascent stage. This Court also referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

¶30

1 (2021) 16 SCC 725

¶31

3

¶32

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab² and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)³ wherein it was held that the grant of pre-arrest bail is neither a licence for the commission of an offence nor a shield for those against whom specific accusations have been made. Pre-arrest bail is a discretionary remedy, and the Court would not grant such relief when specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner.

¶33

The case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner/Accused No.1, being the owner of the spa centre, was running the establishment and indulging in operating a brothel by luring victims into the flesh trade.

¶34

The Hon’ble Apex Court in G.R. Ananda Babu supra wherein at para

¶35

No.6 as under :

¶36

<6…As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (Respondent 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.=

¶37