The Telangana High Court has recently dismissed a habeas corpus plea challenging the continuing custody of a 33-year-old woman at an anti-trafficking NGO, following a raid on a spa in Hyderabad.

The court held that her placement in a protective home, pursuant to a Magistrate order under Section 17(4) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 cannot by itself be construed as illegal detention.

“…the detention in the present case cannot be characterized as unlawful detention…It is evident from the above that the placement of a person rescued under section 16 of the 1956 Act in a protective home is a measure contemplated under the statutory scheme of the 1956 Act for the care and protection of the rescued individual. Such placement is not a permanent arrangement and the eventual rehabilitation or restoration of the individual to their family and society must be in accordance with the safeguards prescribed under section 17(4) of the 1956 Act…”, the court observed.

The division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara, therefore, dismissed the writ by the petitioner who claimed to be the woman's relative. On that aspect, the court noted that the relationship between the alleged detenue and the petitioner had not been corroborated by any evidence.

“…The identity of the petitioner, described as cousin of the alleged detenue is without corroborative evidence and is hence suspicious. It is settled that the Court must give weightage to the relationship between the petitioner and the alleged detenue for the purpose of a writ of Habeas Corpus”, the division bench noted in its order dated November 5.

According to the plea, the alleged detenue was apprehended along with six other persons during a raid at a Spa in Gayathri Hills on October 6. The accused in the matter were also arrested under Section 143(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the 1956 Act, and a remand report was filed the same day.

When the alleged detenue was produced before a Nampally Magistrate, it was directed that she and six other women, purported to be victims, may be sent to Prajwala NGO at Tukkuguda, Hyderabad for safe custody.

Later, a document from the NGO also confirmed that the detenue, along with other women, had been kept there since October 7.

The petitioner, before the High Court, contended that lodging the woman at the NGO was equivalent to illegal detention, since she was only a receptionist at the said Spa from where she was apprehended.

The respondent state, however, argued that the accused persons were running a brothel under the guise of a spa. The seven women, including the detenue, were victims of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation within the meaning of Section 143(2) of the BNS and Section 5 of the 1956 Act, the state said.

After hearing both sides, the court dismissed the plea as devoid of any merit.

“…It is also the respondent's case that the alleged detenue was a sex worker in the said brothel house contrary to the petitioner's contention that the alleged detenue worked as a receptionist in the said spa…”, the court said.

The court then referred to Section 17(4) of the 1956 Act which obligates the Magistrate, before passing any order of detention in a protective home [for not less than one year and not more than three years] to be satisfied of the inquiry required under section 17(2) with respect to the correctness of the information received, and whether the rescued person is in need of care and protection.

“….the placement of the alleged detenue in a protective home pursuant to the order dated 7.10.2026 of the learned XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally passed in accordance with section 17(4) of the 1956 Act, cannot by itself be construed as illegal detention….We are also of the firm view that the investigation is at a crucial stage as would be evident from the summons issued to the detenue for appearance before the concerned Court on 05.12.2026…”, the court noted accordingly.