Pennamaboina Rajesh alias Pemmanaboina Rajesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for grant pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.143 of 2025 of Prakash Nagar Urban Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143(1), 144(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’),

¶21

2

¶22

3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for brevity ‘the

¶23

PIT Act’).

¶24

Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely implicated in this case. He is the sole bread winner of his family. He is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. It is urged to grant prearrest bail to the petitioner.

¶25

Per contra , Ms. P. Akhila, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner stating that some more material witnesses have to be examined. Investigation is not completed. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he would escape from the clutches of law, and it is requested to pass appropriate orders by dismissing the petition.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶27

As seen from the record, the petitioner/Accused No.1 has allegedly been running a brothel under the guise of operating a spa by engaging women in flesh trade and collecting money from the customers. Certain victims were found by the police in the premises during its operation by the petitioner. The victims stated that the petitioner exploited their financially vulnerable condition and compelled them to resort to prostitution.

¶28

3

¶29

Therefore, request for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not appear to be convincing or reasonable. Furthermore, importantly grant of prearrest bail to the petitioner, against whom specific overt acts grave in nature are alleged, is neither a license for commission of serious offence nor a shield or protection for having committed grave offences, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab¹ and

¶30

Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)² . There are no merits in the petition. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 is disentitled for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶31