Grant of bail for alleged immoral trafficking based on prolonged pre-trial detention and completion of investigation.

The applicant was arrested on December 26, 2025, in connection with a raid conducted at Red Mountain Spa Center, Gwalior.

Following a tip-off, a decoy constable was sent to the spa, where he negotiated a transaction for prostitution with a manager named Vikram Sharma.

During the subsequent police search, several individuals were found in objectionable conditions.

Statements from the women apprehended alleged that the applicant and another co-accused (Vivek alias Deepak Tomar) lured them into the spa under the pretext of employment and pressurized them into prostitution.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS after his first application (M.Cr.C. No. 5162/2026) was withdrawn with liberty to renew following the filing of the charge-sheet, which has since been completed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS given the completion of the investigation and the nature of the evidence against him.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

Substantive charges were registered under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, which penalize keeping a brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution, and procuring or inducing persons for the purpose of prostitution.

The Court also considered the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention is an "anathema to the concept of liberty".

The Court evaluated the applicant’s contention that he was neither the owner nor an employee of the spa and that no independent eyewitness evidence linked him to the crime beyond the statements of the co-accused and the apprehended women.

Although the State opposed the bail by citing the dismissal of a co-accused's (Vikram Sharma) bail application, the Court noted that the investigation was now complete and the charge-sheet filed.

The Court reasoned that since the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future, continued incarceration without a trial date would violate the applicant's personal liberty.

The Court found that the applicant, being a law-abiding citizen with no stated flight risk, could be released subject to stringent conditions to ensure his participation in the trial and to prevent tampering with evidence.

The holding is conditioned upon the applicant cooperating with the trial, not influencing witnesses, and not leaving the country without permission.

The Court concluded that the nature of allegations and the duration of the expected trial justified the extension of the benefit of bail.