V. Vijay , Vijaya Krishna, v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.13494 of 2016 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

2.

The petitioner/A.1 filed the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking release in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.536 of 2016 of Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 370-A (2) IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 3.

The case of the prosecution, as per the remand report, is that on 02.08.2016 L.W.5 brought the accused persons along with seized property and submitted a report, in which he stated that when he was in the police station, received credible information about petitioner running brothel house under the guise of providing massage services at Shades Family Beauty Shop, secured mediators and proceeded to the said shop and directed PC 9270 Lachaiah as decoy panch witness and briefed him by giving some amount. After getting a positive signal, he along with his staff and panchas entered into the premises of Shades Family Beauty Shop. On enquiry, A.3, who was present at the spot, disclosed his identity as Valluri Ramesh. Further, A.3 informed that he has been assisting A.1, who is running brothel activities under the guise of providing massage services to the known customers by the female sex workers. He further informed that A.2 is also assisting A.1 in brothel activities. Basing on these allegations, the present case came to be registered.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged. In support of his plea, he placed on record the lease agreement alleged to have been entered by lessor, A.2 and A.3.

5.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same. 6.

As seen from the record, A.3 moved an application, wherein it is stated that he is only owner of the premises and he is nothing to do with the offence. This Court accepted the statement made by A.3 and granted bail to him. In this petition, a different stand is taken stating that A.2 and A.3 are running brothel activities and A.1 has nothing to do with the said offence. In fact, the investigation done by the police clearly establishes that A.1 is running the brothel by collecting huge amounts and distributing the same to A.2 and A.3 from out of the earnings collected. Hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/A.1.

7.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 YVL

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.13494 of 2016 Date: 20.09.2016 YVL