Busaneni Subhash Reddy, 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.3555 OF 2026 DATE : 30.03.2026 Between :
Busaneni Subhash Reddy.
...
Petitioner/Accused And The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.
... Respondent : ORDER :
This criminal petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.367 of 2026 before the Miyapur Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144(2) of BNS, and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of PIT Act.
2.
Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a petition submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Miyapur, a raid was conducted on 06.03.2026 at about 17:00 hours at SS
- 2 - Wellness Spa, Miyapur, on receipt of credible information regarding running of a prostitution racket. During the raid, the police allegedly found certain persons including the organizers and women in the premises, and one customer in a room. It is alleged that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were organizing prostitution by procuring women and sending them to customers for money. 3.
Heard Sri B. Akash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is falsely implicated and there are no specific allegations against him in the complaint. It is contended that the entire case is based only on alleged confessional statements, which are inadmissible in law. It is further submitted that no customer was found present at the time of raid, thereby failing to establish any commercial sexual transaction, which is essential to attract the alleged provisions. The learned counsel also contended that the raid was conducted by a Sub-Inspector, who is not a Special Police Officer as mandated under Section 13 of the Act, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.
- 3 - 5.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that petitioner is an organizer of the prostitution racket and played a key role in procuring women and facilitating illegal activities. The raid resulted in the rescue of victims and seizure of incriminating material, clearly indicating the existence of an organized prostitution network. It is contended that the absence of multiple customers at the time of raid does not dilute the offence, as the material collected during the investigation prima facie establishes involvement of the petitioner. As such, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.
6.
Having regard to rival submissions made, and on perusing the material on record, it is noted that primary and main allegations are against accused No.1. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to compliance with 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 VIII Additional
- 4 - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Kukatpally.
ii.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) week 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 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).
7.
Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :30.03.2026 PT
- 5 - THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3555 OF 2026 DATE :30.03.2026 PT