AP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To 3 Booked For Trafficking, Sexual Exploitation Of Women In Guise Of Running Spa

The three accused were earlier denied anticipatory bail by the High Court on May 8.

Rejecting the second bail application, Justice Mallikarjuna Rao while referring to judgments on the subject said:

"...it is clear that unless there is a significant alteration in the factual circumstances or legal principles necessitating a reconsideration of the previous stance, or if the earlier determination has become obsolete, the second anticipatory bail application cannot be considered. In the absence of change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to consider the petitioners' second anticipatory bail application.”

Emphasizing that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary privilege, the court said that it "should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie convinced that the accused is enroped in the crime and unlikely to misuse the liberty granted".

With respect to the contention that custodial interrogation was not necessary the court said, "The necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioner / accused is paramount in this case to facilitate a thorough investigation into the accusations. Denying custodial interrogation could result in significant loopholes and gaps in the ongoing investigation, adversely affecting its integrity.”

The accused had moved anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 143(2) (trafficking of person) and 144(2) BNS and under provisions of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. Section 144(2) states that whoever, knowingly or having reason to believe that a person has been trafficked, engages such person for sexual exploitation in any manner, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years and also fine. 

Initially, the police had conducted a raid on the premises of the spa in question alleging that the petitioners were running a brothel under the guise of the spa and were allegedly bringing women from various locations and recruiting them into prostitution, in violation of government regulations. During the raid, seven victims of commercial sexual exploitation (VOCSE) were also taken into custody.

The Court noted that the investigation was at the crucial stage and the Police had been unable to capture the petitioners even after a lapse of considerable time.

It said, “It is also not the petitioners' case that they cooperated with the investigation. The investigation in this case has not been completed. The release of the petitioners may adversely affect the investigation process. There is every possibility of threatening the witnesses as apprehended by the Prosecution.”

The court thus dismissed the anticipatory bail plea adding that its observations shall not be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 

Case Title: SHAIK ASIF and Others v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Click Here To Read/Download Order