Kalluru Soubhagya v. The State Of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2747 OF 2026 DATE : 12.03.2026 Between :

Kalluru Soubhagya ...

Petitioner/A.2 And The State of Telangana, Through SHO, Police Station KPHB, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad, ... Respondent/Complainant : ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023 praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.253 of 2026 of KPHB Police Station, Cyberabad District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 144 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 3, 4 and 5 of PIT Act.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 20.02.2026 at about 2:00 p.m, the police received credible information that prostitution was being carried on in Room No.301, 3rd Floor, Charitha Residency, 6th Phase, KPHB Colony, basing on the same, the police, along with mediators and staff, proceeded to the said premises and conducted a raid at about 3:00 p.m. Upon entering the flat, they found two male persons and two female persons including one pair inside a bedroom in a compromising condition. On enquiry, it was revealed that Gattu Krishna, who had taken the flat on rent, was organizing prostitution by bringing women and arranging customers with the assistance of petitioner herein who acted as a mediator for customers. During the raid, the police seized certain material under a cover of panchanama. All the four persons along with the seized property were brought to the police station, and a case was registered against the accused for the above offences. 3.

Heard Sri R. Thirupathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 20.02.2026 and produced before the Magistrate after completion of 24 hours from the time of arrest and such detention is in clear violation of Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India and Section 58 of BNSS. The petitioner is only a sub-organizer and there is no independent material to show that she owned the premises and managed the brothel house. The petitioner had gone to the alleged premises to collect certain amount due to her as she is doing a chit fund business and there is no connection between the petitioner and the activities of A.1. The presence of petitioner at the alleged place is wrongly shown to implicate her in this case. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner. 5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed bail contending that the petitioner is also involved in the offence of running prostitution along with the main accused and was actively assisting in arranging customers and collecting money. Further during the raid the petitioner was found present at the scene along with the other accused and the material seized during the raid prima facie established her involvement in the illegal activities. The contention of the petitioner that she had gone to the premises in connection with

chit fund business is totally false. It is further contended that the investigation is still in progress and the release of petitioner at this stage may hamper the investigation. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition. 6.

Having considered the submissions of both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, the allegation against the petitioner is that she acted as a sub-organizer in the alleged prostitution activity along with the main accused. However, at this stage there is no specific material to show that the petitioner owned the premises or was running the brothel house. The presence of petitioner at the premises alone, without any independent material showing her active role in managing the alleged illegal activity, requires to be examined during trial. The contention of petitioner that she had gone to the premises in connection with her chit fund business and the allegation regarding violation of procedural safeguards also require consideration during the course of trial.

Further, the investigation appears to be substantially completed and the petitioner is a woman, and continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, considering the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner, and

the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions :

i. The petitioner shall execute 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 IV AJCJ-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad. ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO between 09.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m., on every 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 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 483(2) of the BNSS.

7.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 12.03.2026 Rds

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2747 OF 2026 Date: 12.03.2026 Rds