Shaik Anwar@Vijay, 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.3598 of 2026 DATE: 24.03.2026 BETWEEN:

Shaik Anwar @ Vijay., And another.

.....Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

.....Respondent

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.222 of 2026 before the Gachibowli Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under

Sections 143(3), 144(2) of BNS, and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 04.02.2026 at about 16:30 hours, the Detective Inspector of Police, Gachibowli Police Station, received credible information that prostitution activities were being conducted at Plot Nos.49 & 50, Door No.104, Sai Balaji Cubicle Apartment, Raghavendra Colony, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. The information was entered in the General Diary, and permission was obtained from the ACP, Narsingi Division. A raid was conducted at 17:00 hours with police staff, women police personnel, and panch witnesses. During the raid, accused Shaik Anwar @ Vijay (A-1) was apprehended, who confessed that he along with Sairigapu Gayatri (A-2) had been running a prostitution racket for three months. Two customers were found at the premises, one waiting and another engaged in sexual activity with a sex worker. Cash, mobile phones, condoms, and other material were seized under panchanama. The accused were taken into custody and a case was registered in Crime No.222/2026 under Sections 143(3), 144(2) BNS and Sections 3, 4, 5 of the PITA Act, 1956.

3.

Heard Sri Chandrasekhar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have been falsely implicated, as there is no mention of them in the original complaint. The prosecution relies only on confessional statements, which are inadmissible in law. He further submitted that under Section 13 of the PITA Act, only a Special Police Officer (SPO) appointed by the State Government is authorized to conduct raids and investigations, whereas in the present case, the raid was conducted by personnel lacking such statutory authority, rendering the proceedings illegal.

He contended that substantial witness statements have already been recorded, material evidence seized, and hence there is no scope of tampering. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition. 5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the allegations leveled against the

petitioners are serious in nature. He further submitted that the investigation was not yet completed. At this stage, the question of grant of bail to the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6.

Having regard to rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that petitioner No.1/accused No.1 was apprehended at the spot and is alleged to be the prime mover of the prostitution racket. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation, bail to A‐1 cannot be granted at this juncture, as such, this criminal petition is dismissed in so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned.

7.

In contrast, the case against petitioner No.2/accused No.2 rests mainly on the confessional statement of A‐1, which is inadmissible in law, and no substantial independent material has been shown to connect A‐2. As seizure and witness statements are already recorded, further custody of A‐2 is not warranted. Hence, this Court deems it fit to enlarge petitioner No.2 on bail subject to the following conditions:

i.

The petitioner No.2 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 II Additional Junior Civil Judge cum X Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally.

ii.

The petitioner No.2 shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Wednesday for a period of eight (8) weeks, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.

iii.

The petitioner No.2 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 480(3) of the BNSS, earlier known as Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.

7.

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is partly allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 24.03.2026 PT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3598 of 2026 DATE: 24.03.2026 PT