Bail denied where accused was found with a woman amid evidence of organized prostitution activities.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 638/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Damoh, for offences under Section 143(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information regarding prostitution being conducted under the guise of a spa, police raided Unique The Thai Spa Centre on 9 July 2026. The applicant was allegedly found in one of the rooms with a woman.

Statements of the women allegedly indicated that they had been engaged for massage services and were subsequently induced, threatened or compelled to provide sexual services to customers.

The applicant had been in custody since 9 July 2026.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations and material collected during investigation.

Whether the circumstances in which the applicant was allegedly found in a room with a woman, together with the statements of the women and recoveries from the spa premises, justified refusal of bail at that stage.

Whether the applicant’s contention that the ingredients of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act were prima facie absent warranted his release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail while exercising judicial discretion on the basis of the nature and gravity of the accusations, the material collected during investigation, and the surrounding circumstances.

The alleged offences were under Section 143(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, concerning activities connected with prostitution, brothel-keeping, living on prostitution earnings, procuring or inducing persons for prostitution, detention for prostitution, and prostitution in or near certain public places.

At the bail stage, the Court assessed whether the prosecution material disclosed circumstances sufficiently serious to decline discretionary relief; it did not undertake a conclusive determination of guilt.

No separate judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court considered the prosecution allegation that the applicant was apprehended inside a room of the spa with a woman during a raid conducted on information regarding prostitution.

Although the applicant argued that mere presence was insufficient and that no incriminating article or financial record had been recovered from him, the Court assessed his presence in the context of the broader prosecution case.

That context included the statements of the women alleging that the spa was being used to provide sexual services, the alleged inducement or coercion employed by the operator, and the recovery of condoms, mobile phones, cash and spa-registration documents from the premises.

Considering the manner of the raid, the circumstances of the applicant’s apprehension, the witness statements and the recoveries, the Court was not persuaded to exercise its discretionary bail jurisdiction in the applicant’s favour at that stage.

The application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was accordingly rejected.