Telangana HC Rejects Cousin’s Plea To Free Woman From Prajwala, Says Magistrate-Ordered ITPA Protective-Home Placement Isn’t By Itself Illegal Detention

The petitioner, claiming to be the alleged detenue’s cousin, filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that she had been unlawfully detained by the police after a raid at a spa on 6 October 2026.

The alleged detenue and six other women were arrested and produced before a Magistrate, who directed that they be placed at Prajwala NGO for safe custody; they remained there under that arrangement.

The respondents alleged that the petitioner was operating a brothel and that the women were victims of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation, while the petitioner maintained that the alleged detenue worked as a receptionist.

The Court applied Sections 2(f) and 2(g) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, defining “prostitution” and “protective home”.

The Court considered Sections 16 and 17 of the Act, under which a person rescued under Section 16 may be placed in a protective home following the statutory inquiry and safeguards under Section 17(2) and (4).

The Court stated that such placement is a statutory measure for care and protection and is not, by itself, illegal detention; subsequent rehabilitation or restoration must comply with the prescribed safeguards.

The Court found the petitioner’s claimed relationship with the alleged detenue uncorroborated and therefore suspicious, noting that the relationship is relevant in a habeas corpus petition.

It further held that the alleged detenue’s placement at Prajwala was made under a Magistrate’s order pursuant to Section 17(4) of the 1956 Act and therefore could not, by itself, be treated as unlawful detention.

The Court also noted that the investigation remained at a crucial stage, referring to a summons requiring the alleged detenue to appear before the concerned court on 5 December 2026.

Any interim orders were vacated, with no order as to costs.