Mere Presence As Customer At Spa Centre Does Not Attract Offences Under Sections 3, 4 & 5 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"The gravamen of the accusation levelled against him is not that he was involved in organising, managing, or facilitating the alleged prostitution activities, but that he was allegedly found present as a customer at the spa centre where the purported illegal activities were being carried on." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in an important ruling dated October 26, 2026, held that a person found present as a customer at a spa centre where commercial sex work is allegedly conducted cannot be treated as an organiser, manager, or facilitator under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

Enlarging a 72-year-old accused on regular bail under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao observed that visiting the premises in the capacity of a customer does not prima facie attract penal liability for running a brothel without proof of facilitation or knowledge of human trafficking.

The petitioner, a resident of Visakhapatnam, was arrested on October 13, 2026, and arrayed as Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 159 of 2026 registered by the II Town Police Station for alleged offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(a), and 5(1)(c) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The prosecution case rested substantially on the allegation that police apprehended the petitioner while he was visiting a spa centre as a patron during an ongoing raid. After spending thirteen days in judicial custody, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking bail.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a customer found present at a spa centre can be held criminally liable under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The court was also called upon to decide whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the absence of any allegation of managing or facilitating commercial sex work.

Customer Distinct From Organiser Or Facilitator Of Prostitution

Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao scrutinized the gravamen of the allegations levelled by the prosecution and noted that the petitioner was merely present at the establishment as a patron. The court pointed out that the State did not allege that the petitioner participated in managing, running, or facilitating the alleged illicit operations at the spa centre. The bench noted that the prosecution case against the petitioner rested exclusively on his physical presence as a customer when the raid occurred.

Prostitution Per Se Not Illegal Under Immoral Traffic Act

The bench took judicial notice of the authoritative principles laid down by the Orissa High Court in Bikash Kumar Jain v. State of Odisha (2024 SCC OnLine Ori 826). In that decision, the court had clarified that the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, was framed to prevent exploitation and illegal trafficking, rather than criminalising consensual adult sex work per se. The Orissa High Court had authoritatively ruled that "the act of sexual intercourse for consideration is not illegal per se under the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956," whereas soliciting or inducing persons for prostitution constitutes the actual statutory offence.

Weak Evidence Cannot Be Basis To Try Customers Under PIT Act

Continuing its analysis of Bikash Kumar Jain, the bench observed that judicial precedent generally shields customers from penal liability under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act unless there is cogent material showing active procurement. The court reiterated that "on the strength of weak evidence the customer cannot be tried for under the provisions under Sections of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956." It is only when a patron assumes the role of procuring victims for others that criminal liability under anti-trafficking penal provisions can be triggered.

"In the absence of material that women are trafficked for the purpose of engaging for sexual exploitation, the offence under Section 370A(2) of IPC will not be attract against the customer."

Knowledge Of Human Trafficking Essential For Penal Liability

The High Court further leaned upon its own coordinate bench judgment in Vasanthavada Raghubabu v. State of A.P. (2025 SCC OnLine AP 3869), which established the parameters for prosecuting customers under Section 370A of the Indian Penal Code. The coordinate bench had explained that while Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits human trafficking and customers cannot be viewed as entirely innocent victims in the flesh trade, liability under Section 370A(2) requires clear proof of scienter. Specifically, the prosecution must demonstrate that the customer engaged the person while knowing or having reason to believe that the individual was trafficked.

Mere Presence At Raided Premises Does Not Attract Section 370A IPC

Reaffirming the holding in Vasanthavada Raghubabu, the court highlighted that a customer who merely visits a premises without fulfilling the foundational statutory ingredients cannot be fastened with penal culpability. The precedent had explicitly noted that "in the event, a customer merely visits the said premises or mere presence of such customer at the spot during any raid which indicates that they were customers who had gone to said spot, and without meeting the essential ingredients under Sections 370A of the Penal Code, 1860, does not attract criminal liability."

Regular Bail Granted Under BNSS Subject To Stringent Conditions

Assessing the entitlement to bail under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the court observed that the petitioner was a 72-year-old permanent resident of Visakhapatnam with a fixed abode and had already undergone thirteen days of judicial incarceration. The bench held that subject to stringent conditions, there was no reasonable apprehension of the petitioner tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or frustrating the ongoing investigation.

Prose Directions On Personal Bond And Investigating Cooperation

The High Court consequently directed the petitioner to be enlarged on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the V Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the concerned Station House Officer every Saturday between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm until the charge sheet is filed, surrender his passport or submit an affidavit confirming he holds none, refrain from leaving Andhra Pradesh without express permission, and cooperate fully with the investigating agency.

The High Court allowed the criminal petition and granted regular bail, reaffirming the legal principle that mere presence as a customer during a brothel raid does not warrant prosecution for managing or trafficking offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The ruling provides valuable clarity for criminal defense practitioners regarding the threshold of evidence required to implicate patrons intercepted at commercial spa centres.

Date of Decision: 26 October 2026