Telangana HC Grants Bail to Woman Accused in Prostitution Raid; Holds Mere Presence at Premises Insufficient to Deny Bail [Read Order]

Telangana: The Telangana High Court has held that the mere presence of an accused at the site of an alleged brothel, without any independent material demonstrating ownership of the premises or active involvement in managing the illegal activity, is insufficient to deny bail.

Justice K. Sujana further held that where the investigation is substantially complete and the accused is a woman, continued detention cannot be justified on the ground of investigation alone. The Court accordingly granted bail to Kalluru Soubhagya, arrayed as Accused No. 2 in a prostitution case registered at KPHB Police Station, Cyberabad.

The Court of Justice K. Sujana was hearing a criminal petition filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner sought bail in connection with offences under Sections 143 and 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act.

The facts placed before the Court were that on February 20, 2026, at around 2:00 p.m., the police received credible information that prostitution was being carried on at Room No. 301, 3rd Floor, Charitha Residency, 6th Phase, KPHB Colony. Acting on this information, the police proceeded to the premises along with mediators and staff and conducted a raid at approximately 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 inquiry, it emerged that one Gattu Krishna, the main accused, had taken the flat on rent and was organising prostitution by bringing women and arranging customers. The petitioner was alleged to have acted as a mediator for customers in furtherance of this activity. Certain material was seized at the spot under a panchanama, and all four persons were taken to the police station. A case was thereafter registered against the accused.

Counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. Thirupathi, raised both procedural and substantive grounds before the Court. On the procedural side, it was contended that the petitioner was arrested on February 20, 2026, and was produced before the Magistrate only after the completion of 24 hours from the time of arrest. This, it was argued, constituted a clear violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 58 of the BNSS.

On the merits, it was submitted that the petitioner was, at best, a sub-organiser, and that there was no independent material to establish that she owned the premises or managed the brothel. The petitioner’s version was that she had gone to the premises solely to collect an amount due to her in connection with her chit fund business. She maintained that her presence at the location was wrongly projected to implicate her in the case.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, strongly opposed bail. He contended that the petitioner was actively involved in the alleged illegal activity and was assisting in arranging customers and collecting money. He submitted that her presence during the raid itself was sufficient to establish her connection to the offences. The State further argued that the petitioner’s claim of visiting the premises for chit fund purposes was wholly false. It was also urged that the investigation was still in progress and that releasing the petitioner at this stage could hamper it.

After considering the submissions of both sides and examining the material on record, the Court found that while the allegation against the petitioner was that she acted as a sub-organiser, no specific material at this stage demonstrated that she owned the premises or was running the brothel.

The Court noted that her presence at the premises, standing alone and without any independent material corroborating an active managerial role, was a matter that required examination during trial. The petitioner’s contention regarding her chit fund business and the alleged procedural violations were also held to require consideration during trial.

The Court additionally noted that the investigation appeared to be substantially complete and that the petitioner was a woman, making her continued detention unnecessary for investigative purposes.

The Court accordingly granted bail subject to conditions. The petitioner was directed to execute a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of a like amount each. She was further directed to appear before the concerned Station House Officer every Wednesday between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for a period of eight weeks or until the filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier, and thereafter as and when required.

The petitioner was also directed to abide by the conditions stipulated under Section 483(2) of the BNSS.

The criminal petition was accordingly allowed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

Case Title: Kalluru Soubhagya v. State of Telangana (Criminal Petition No. 2747 of 2026)

[Read Order]