Bail denied where raid circumstances, witness statements, and recovered articles prima facie supported organized prostitution activities.

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

He had been in custody since 9 July 2026; his first bail application had been dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive the prayer after filing of the charge-sheet.

According to the prosecution, the police raided “Unique The Thai Spa Centre” on secret information regarding prostitution being conducted under the guise of spa services.

The applicant was allegedly found at the counter and was stated to be operating the spa centre.

Persons were allegedly found with women in separate rooms, and packets of condoms, mobile phones, cash and documents relating to the spa centre were seized from the premises and counter.

The statements of the women allegedly disclosed that they had initially been employed for massage services but were subsequently induced, threatened or compelled to provide sexual services to customers.

The applicant was alleged to have informed them of these activities and threatened them with consequences if they refused.

The applicant denied involvement, contending that he was falsely implicated, that no incriminating material was recovered from him, and that the essential ingredients of the offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act were not established.

The State opposed bail on the basis of the applicant’s presence at the spa, the recoveries and the statements of the women.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the material collected during investigation?

Whether the applicant’s alleged presence at and association with the spa premises, together with the statements of the women and the articles recovered during the raid, constituted sufficient prima facie material to decline bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s jurisdiction to grant regular bail.

It considered the offences alleged under Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, which concern, inter alia, punishment relating to brothel-keeping, living on the earnings of prostitution, procuring or inducing persons for prostitution, detaining persons for prostitution, and prostitution in or near certain public places.

The Court applied the established bail principle that relief is discretionary and must be assessed from the nature and gravity of the accusation, the prima facie material collected, the circumstances of the alleged offence, and the likelihood of interference with the administration of justice.

The Court also noted the applicant’s reliance on the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21, but did not find that ground sufficient to justify bail in the circumstances of the case.

The Court considered the prosecution’s case as a whole rather than treating the applicant’s presence at the spa as an isolated circumstance.

The alleged raid, the applicant’s presence at the counter and purported identification as the spa operator, the recovery of condoms, mobile phones, cash and registration documents, and the statements of the women indicating that sexual services were being provided at the premises collectively constituted prima facie material against him.

Although the applicant argued that no specific overt act or incriminating article had been recovered from his personal possession and that the statutory ingredients were absent, the Court held that, at the bail stage, the circumstances in which he was found and the material collected during investigation could not be disregarded.

Considering the manner of the raid, the statements recorded during investigation and the articles recovered from the premises, the Court was not persuaded to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in his favour.

It held that, having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation and the circumstances in which the applicant was allegedly apprehended, he had not made out a case for grant of regular bail.

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