Syed Altaf vs STATE OF TELANGANA

* THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

+ WRIT PETITION No.36328 OF 2026

%Dated 05.11.2026
# BETWEEN:
Syed Altaf
…Petitioner
VERSUS

State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Government of Telangana,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 Others
…Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. Lakkireddy Lokesh Reddy, learned
counsel.
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, the learned
Government Pleader representing the
learned Advocate General appearing
for the respondents.

< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :

2
MB,J & RY,J
WP_36328_2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

WRIT PETITION No.36328 of 2026
(CNR No. HBHC010746602026)
DATE: 05.11.2026
Between :
Syed Altaf.
…Petitioner
And
State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Government of Telangana,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 Others.
...Respondents

Mr. Lakkireddy Lokesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, the learned Government Pleader representing the learned
Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
ORDER:

1. The Writ Petition has been filed against the detention of the
alleged detenue who is stated to be a 33 year-old woman. The
petitioner claims to be a cousin of the alleged detenue.

3
MB,J & RY,J
WP_36328_2026

2. The petitioner’s case is that the alleged detenue has been
illegally detained on 06.10.2026 by the respondent No.3, Station
House Officer/Inspector of Police, Jubilee Hills Police Station, Jubilee
Hills Division, Hyderabad, in the State Home, Madhura Nagar,
Hyderabad.

3. The brief facts culminating in the filing of the present Writ

Petition are as follows:
3.1. The alleged detenue along with six others was picked up by
the Police pursuant to a raid conducted at ‘Loki Ayurvedi
Family SPA’ located in Gayatri Hills, Hyderabad, on
06.10.2026 at 21:00 hours.
3.2. The accused was arrested on 06.10.2026 at 23:45 hours

pursuant to under section 143(2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and sections 3, 4 and 5 of The
Prevention of Immortal Trafficking Act, 1956 (‘1956 Act’).
The remand Report was filed on 06.10.2026 at 23:45 hours.
3.3. The alleged detenue was thereafter produced before the
learned XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at
Nampally, on 07.10.2026.

4
MB,J & RY,J
WP_36328_2026
3.4. The learned XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at
Nampally, directed the alleged detenue and six other women
(described as victims by the Chief Judicial Magistrate) to be
sent to a Prajwala NGO, Tukkuguda, Hyderabad, for safe
custody under escort till further orders.

4. The Court is informed that the alleged detenue, along with six
other women have been kept in a safe home-‘Prajwala’, an anti-
trafficking NGO in Hyderabad since 07.10.2026. The document from
Prajwala dated 23.10.2026 confirms the aforesaid.

5. The case of the respondents is that the accused was running a
brothel under the guise of a spa. Hence, the seven women who were
apprehended by the Police on 06.10.2026 from the said spa are
victims of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation within the
meaning of section 143(2) of the BNS and section 5 of the 1956 Act.
It is also the respondent’s case that the alleged detenue was a sex
worker in the said brothel house contrary to the petitioner’s
contention that the alleged detenue worked as a receptionist in the
said spa.

5
MB,J & RY,J
WP_36328_2026
6. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, we
are of the considered view that the present Writ Petition for a writ of
Habeas Corpus is devoid of any merit.

7. First and foremost, the identity of the petitioner, described as
cousin of the alleged detenue is without corroborative evidence and is
hence suspicious. It is settled that the Court must give weightage to
the relationship between the petitioner and the alleged detenue for
the purpose of a writ of Habeas Corpus.

8. Second, the detention in the present case cannot be
characterized as unlawful detention. The alleged detenue has been
admitted in Prajwala NGO, Tukkuguda, Hyderabad for safe custody
pursuant to the direction given by the learned XVII Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, under section 17(4) of the 1956 Act.
The word ‘prostitution’ is defined under section 2(f) of the 1956 Act
and the word ‘protective home’ is defined under section 2(g) of the
1956 Act.

9. Section 17(4) of the 1956 Act obligates the Magistrate, before
passing any order of detention in a protective home, for not less than

6
MB,J & RY,J
WP_36328_2026
one year and not more than three years, to be satisfied of the inquiry
required under section 17(2) with respect to the correctness of the
information received under section 16(1) and whether the rescued
person is in need of care and protection.

10. It is evident from the above that the placement of a person
rescued under section 16 of the 1956 Act in a protective home is a
measure contemplated under the statutory scheme of the 1956 Act
for the care and protection of the rescued individual. Such placement
is not a permanent arrangement and the eventual rehabilitation or
restoration of the individual to their family and society must be in
accordance with the safeguards prescribed under section 17(4) of the
1956 Act.

11. Therefore, the placement of the alleged detenue in a protective
home pursuant to the order dated 7.10.2026 of the learned XVII
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally passed in
accordance with section 17(4) of the 1956 Act, cannot by itself be
construed as illegal detention.

7
MB,J & RY,J
WP_36328_2026
12. We are also of the firm view that the investigation is at a crucial

stage as would be evident from the summons issued to the detenue
for appearance before the concerned Court on 05.12.2026.

13. W.P. No.36328 of 2026, along with all connected applications,
is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J

____________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 05.11.2026
gms