Uttarakhand High Court
Vikas Chawla vs State Of Uttarakhand on 31 July, 2026
Office
Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
SL.
Date or COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
directions
and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
UKHC010055942026
ABA/124/2026
Vikas Chawla
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.
along with Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
3. By means of the present application,
the applicant seeks anticipatory bail in
connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No.
0061 of 2026, registered at Police Station
Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar,
for the offences punishable under Sections
3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the F.I.R. has been
lodged against the present applicant and
three other co-accused alleging that on
05.04.2026, acting on the directions of the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham
Singh Nagar, a police team conducted a
special drive under the code name “Prahar”
against the illegal activities allegedly being
carried on in certain spa centres situated
in Metropolis Mall, Rudrapur. It is allegd
that during the raid, several persons
allegedly attempted to flee from the spa
centres, however, six women were found
inside one of the spa centres and, during
the course of inquiry, they allegedly
disclosed that they had been induced by
the owner/management of the spa centre
to engage in prostitution.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that the applicant is
neither the owner nor the proprietor of the
alleged spa centre operating in Metropolis
Mall; that, the licence of the said
establishment does not stand in the name
of the present applicant; that, the
applicant was not present at the place of
occurrence at the time of the alleged raid
and has been implicated solely on the
basis of the statement of one of the alleged
victims, without any independent material
connecting him with the alleged offences.
6. Learned counsel would further submit
that no incriminating article or
objectionable material has been recovered
from the possession of the applicant, nor
was he found in any objectionable or
compromising situation during the alleged
raid; that, the mandatory procedure
prescribed under Section 15 of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 has
not been complied with by the raiding
party. Placing reliance upon Section 15(1)
of the Act, learned counsel submits that
the search was conducted without
obtaining a search warrant and without
recording reasons in writing showing the
existence of reasonable grounds for
believing that obtaining a warrant would
cause undue delay or defeat the object of
the search; that, the search memo does not
disclose compliance with the mandatory
safeguards contemplated under the said
provision, thereby rendering the search
and seizure legally doubtful.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant
would also submit that the alleged search
was conducted inside Metropolis Mall, a
public commercial complex situated in the
heart of the city, where several
shopkeepers and members of the public
were available, yet no independent witness
was associated with the search
proceedings; the applicant has no criminal
antecedents; that, he has falsely been
implicated; that, there is no likelihood of
his absconding or tampering with the
prosecution evidence.
8. Learned State Counsel vehemently
opposes the anticipatory bail application.
However, upon instructions, he does not
dispute that no warrant had been issued
against the applicant prior to the
institution of the present proceedings. He
seeks time to file a detailed counter
affidavit placing the stand of the State on
record.
9. In the interest of justice, four weeks’
time is granted to the learned State
counsel to file counter affidavit/objections.
10. List this matter thereafter.
11. Having considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties, the nature of the allegations, the
material available on record, the
instructions furnished by the Investigating
Officer indicating that the applicant was
not found present at the place of
occurrence during the alleged raid, the
absence of any recovery from the applicant,
and the plea regarding prima facie non-
compliance with the mandatory safeguards
contained in Section 15 of the Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, this Court is of the prima facie view
that the applicant has made out a case for
grant of interim anticipatory bail till the
next date of listing.
12. Accordingly, it is directed that the
investigation shall proceed independently,
fairly and strictly in accordance with law
and shall not be influenced by any
observation made in this order. However,
in the event of arrest of the applicant in
connection with the aforesaid Case
Crime/F.I.R., he shall be released on
interim anticipatory bail till the next date
of listing on his furnishing a personal bond
along with two reliable sureties, each in
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer,
subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall cooperate with the
investigation and shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when required;
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade such
person from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to the Investigating Agency;
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the territory
of India without prior permission of the Court
concerned;
(iv) The applicant shall not misuse the liberty
granted by this order and shall maintain
peace and good conduct during the period of
interim protection;
(v) In case of breach of any of the aforesaid
conditions, it shall be open to the
State/prosecution to seek modification or
cancellation of interim anticipatory bail in
accordance with law.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
31.07.2026
Mamta
