Manager acting as frontline operator in immoral trafficking case denied bail despite parity claim.

On June 8, 2025, police conducted a sting operation using a decoy at Red Mountain Spa Center, Gwalior.

The applicant, Vikram Sharma, was found at the counter acting as the manager/operator. He accepted money from the decoy and directed him to a room for prostitution.

During the search, several individuals were found in objectionable conditions; the victims identified the applicant as the person who arranged customers and managed the trade.

This is the applicant’s seventh bail application; the first two were withdrawn, and the subsequent four were dismissed on merits.

The applicant sought bail on grounds of parity with co-accused Shivnarayan Bhadoriya, who was granted bail on March 12, 2026.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity with co-accused Shivnarayan Bhadoriya under the principles of bail jurisprudence.

2. Whether there are sufficient changes in circumstances or grounds of merit to enlarge the applicant on bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The court considered Section 483 of the BNSS regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It applied the principle of "Parity," which dictates that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally, provided their roles and the evidence against them are identical.

The court further applied the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, specifically Sections 3 through 7, which criminalize keeping a brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution, and procuring or inducing persons for the sake of prostitution.

The court distinguished the role of the applicant from that of the co-accused, Shivnarayan, who had already been granted bail. It observed that while Shivnarayan was not directly involved in the immediate transaction of the offence, the applicant was the "front man" and manager of the spa.

The court noted that the applicant was the specific individual who negotiated with the decoy, accepted the currency, and lured customers. Consequently, the court found that the applicant's role was more serious and "main" compared to the co-accused, thereby negating the grounds for parity.

Additionally, the court found no new changes in circumstances since the dismissal of the previous four merit-based applications.

Given the nature and gravity of the offence and the lack of change in circumstances, the seventh bail application was dismissed.