Imagine this: You visit a spa for a massage. You are later found inside during a police raid, and the police discover that sexual services were allegedly being offered at the premises. You are not the owner, manager, broker or employee—you are simply a customer who paid for the service.
Can you be arrested?
Can you be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA)?
And most importantly, if the sexual relationship was consensual, what can you do?
The answer is more nuanced than “spa raid = criminal case.” Recent judgments from the Supreme Court and several High Courts have repeatedly examined the liability of a mere customer, with several courts holding that merely being a customer does not, by itself, make the customer guilty of offences relating to running or managing a brothel.
However, there is an important complication: Section 7 of the ITPA has generated conflicting High Court interpretations, and the Supreme Court itself noted this conflict in its 2026 judgment in Prajwala v. Union of India.
So, what should you actually do?
First: Is consensual sex between two adults itself a crime?
No, not merely because the two adults had consensual sexual relations.
Indian law does not generally criminalise consensual sexual activity between adults simply because money was exchanged.
The legal issue becomes different when the surrounding circumstances involve trafficking, coercion, exploitation, running a brothel, solicitation in prohibited circumstances or other offences specifically created by law.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised the distinction between voluntary adult sex work and trafficking/exploitation.
In its extensive 2026 judgment in Prajwala v. Union of India, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle emerging from Budhadev Karmaskar that adult persons voluntarily engaged in sex work should not be treated as criminals merely because they are sex workers. The Court specifically discussed the need for police not to harass or victimise voluntary adult sex workers during raids.
That, however, does not mean that every activity taking place inside a spa is automatically lawful.
The legality of the premises, management, trafficking, solicitation and circumstances of the sexual activity must be examined separately.
What does the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act actually punish?
The ITPA is primarily aimed at preventing commercial sexual exploitation and trafficking-related activities.
Among its important provisions are:
- Section 3 – keeping or managing a brothel or knowingly allowing premises to be used as a brothel;
- Section 4 – living on the earnings of prostitution;
- Section 5 – procuring, inducing or taking a person for the sake of prostitution;
- Section 6 – detaining a person in premises where prostitution is carried on;
- Section 7 – prostitution in or in the vicinity of certain public places;
- Section 8 – seducing or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution.
Notice something important:
Most of these provisions target people involved in operating, facilitating or exploiting prostitution—not simply someone who happens to be present.
That distinction has become extremely important in recent High Court decisions.
What if I was merely a customer?
This is where your potential defence becomes significant.
Several High Courts have held that a mere customer cannot automatically be prosecuted under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the ITPA merely because he was found inside a brothel or spa during a raid.
Karnataka High Court
In Prashanth P.P. v. State of Karnataka (2024), the Karnataka High Court considered a case where the petitioner was found as a customer during a raid on premises alleged to be a brothel/spa.
The Court observed that a customer cannot simply be hauled into criminal proceedings merely because he was present at the premises as a customer.
Similarly, in Vinayak Venu Kuttian v. State (2024), the Karnataka High Court reiterated that a customer found in a brothel/spa could not automatically be prosecuted under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 merely on account of being a customer.
An important 2025 Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling
In Ashish Chubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025), the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered allegations against persons who were customers.
The Court held that merely paying a woman for sexual gratification does not necessarily mean that the customer procured or induced her for prostitution within the meaning of Section 5.
The Court further held that a customer does not ordinarily “carry on prostitution” merely by visiting the premises and therefore Section 7 could not automatically be applied to him on that basis in the facts before the Court.
This is a particularly useful judgment for someone who is genuinely only a customer.
Even more recent: Allahabad High Court, 2026
A very recent decision is particularly relevant to Delhi-NCR readers.
In Nitin v. State of U.P. (11 August 2026), the Allahabad High Court considered a case arising from a raid in Ghaziabad.
The applicant was alleged to have been merely a customer at premises where sex work was being carried on. The FIR invoked Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the ITPA.
The High Court held that a person who visits a brothel as a customer to satisfy his personal desire does not, merely by doing so, become a person keeping/managing the brothel or procuring a woman for prostitution within Sections 3 or 5. It also held, on the facts before it, that Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 were not attracted against the applicant and quashed the criminal proceedings, charge-sheet and summoning order.
For someone caught in a similar situation in the Ghaziabad/Noida/Delhi-NCR region, this judgment could be an important authority to discuss with counsel.
Gujarat High Court has also repeatedly protected “mere customers”
The trend is not confined to Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka.
In Husanali Kurbanali Vakil v. State of Gujarat (9 February 2026), the Gujarat High Court quashed proceedings under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 of the ITPA against an accused who was found during a raid as a customer, noting that he was not a broker or hotel staff member.
Similarly, in Jigar Dushyantbhai Desai v. State of Gujarat (4 February 2026), the Gujarat High Court quashed proceedings where the accused was allegedly merely a customer and not the manager, agent or owner of the hotel.
These decisions reinforce an important principle:
The police must establish your actual role. Merely being present at the premises is not necessarily enough.
But here is the important catch: Section 7 is controversial
A responsible legal article cannot simply say:
“Customers can never be prosecuted.”
That would be too broad.
Section 7 specifically refers to a person who “carries on prostitution” and the person with whom such prostitution is carried on when the statutory conditions concerning notified areas or proximity to specified public places are satisfied.
And this has produced different interpretations among High Courts.
The Supreme Court expressly acknowledged this conflict in its 2026 Prajwala judgment, noting that some High Courts have interpreted the expression as covering customers while others have taken the opposite view.
For example, the Kerala High Court in Sarath Chandran v. State of Kerala took the view that a person paying a sex worker in a brothel could, in appropriate circumstances, fall within Section 5 because the payment itself could amount to inducement. The Kerala High Court's subsequent Abdul Hameed P. v. State of Kerala (2026) discussed this conflicting line of authority.
Therefore:
Being a customer is a strong defence in many cases—but it is not a universal immunity from every possible charge.
The exact FIR, location, role of the accused and evidence matter.
What about the police arresting you during the raid?
A police raid does not itself establish your guilt.
If you are arrested, the immediate legal priority is to obtain appropriate bail and then examine whether the FIR actually discloses an offence against you.
The appropriate remedy depends upon the stage of the case.
If you fear arrest
Your lawyer can examine whether anticipatory bail under the applicable provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is appropriate.
If you have already been arrested
You can seek regular bail before the appropriate court.
If the FIR itself does not disclose an offence
A petition before the High Court for quashing may be considered.
The BNSS preserves the High Court's inherent powers under Section 528, which can be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise secure the ends of justice.
The recent High Court cases discussed above demonstrate that quashing is not merely theoretical. Courts have actually quashed ITPA proceedings where the allegations, even if accepted, did not establish the customer's participation in the prohibited activity.
What if the police also allege rape?
This is a completely different question.
Suppose the woman later alleges that the sexual relationship was not consensual or that consent was obtained through fraudulent inducement, coercion or a false promise of marriage.
Then the case cannot be decided merely by saying:
“She was a sex worker, so she consented.”
Consent must be examined from the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court recently dealt with an almost directly relevant factual setting in Ankit Tomar v. State of Haryana (2026 INSC 262).
The complainant was working at a massage parlour and was in charge of it. The accused had initially visited as a customer and subsequently had a physical relationship with her. The Supreme Court found the relationship consensual on the facts before it and held that the allegations did not establish inducement, threat or deception sufficient to sustain the rape prosecution. It therefore quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings.
This judgment is important—but its facts must not be overstated.
It does NOT mean:
“Sex at a massage parlour can never amount to rape.”
It means that where the material itself demonstrates consensual relations and the ingredients of the alleged offence are absent, the High Court/Supreme Court can intervene and quash the proceedings.
What should you do immediately after a spa raid?
If you were genuinely only a customer, do not panic—but do not casually discuss the incident either.
Preserve evidence
Keep:
- spa booking records;
- payment receipts;
- UPI transactions;
- messages with the spa;
- appointment confirmations;
- CCTV-related information, if available;
- communications showing why you visited;
- identity documents;
- any notice or document given by police.
Do not delete or manipulate anything.
Find out what sections are actually in the FIR
This is critical.
There is a huge difference between being named under:
- Section 3 ITPA;
- Section 5 ITPA;
- Section 7 ITPA;
- BNS provisions;
- trafficking provisions; or
- offences involving alleged non-consensual sexual activity.
Your remedy depends heavily on the exact allegations.
Don't sign statements blindly
If police ask you to provide documents or statements, speak to a criminal lawyer before making decisions that could affect your defence.
The Supreme Court's broader message: don't treat sex workers as criminals
The Supreme Court's jurisprudence in Budhadev Karmaskar, and its more detailed 2026 proceedings in Prajwala, are important because they distinguish between voluntary adult sex work and trafficking/exploitation.
The Court has directed that adult voluntary sex workers should receive equal protection of the law and should not be harassed or victimised merely because they are found during a raid.
That principle matters for the customer as well because it reinforces the larger legal distinction between:
voluntary adult conduct
and
criminal exploitation/trafficking/brothel-related offences.
So, what is your strongest legal remedy?
If the facts are exactly as described—you were an adult customer, the woman was an adult, the relationship was consensual, you had no role in managing the spa, recruiting or transporting women, procuring women for others, trafficking, coercing anyone, or sharing the spa's profits—then your lawyer can examine whether the FIR actually establishes the ingredients of an offence against you.
Depending on the charges and stage of the matter, the possible remedies include:
- Anticipatory bail if arrest is apprehended.
- Regular bail if you have already been arrested.
- Discharge where the statutory requirements for framing charges are not satisfied.
- Quashing of FIR/charge-sheet under Section 528 BNSS where continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process or the allegations do not constitute an offence.
- Defence at trial if the court does not quash the proceedings.
The recent Allahabad High Court decision in Nitin (2026) and several Gujarat, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh decisions demonstrate that quashing can be a particularly relevant remedy for a person who is genuinely shown only as a customer.
The Bottom Line
A spa raid does not automatically make every customer a criminal.
If you were genuinely only a customer, had consensual relations with an adult, and had no involvement in running the establishment, trafficking, procuring, managing or exploiting anyone, there may be substantial grounds to challenge criminal proceedings—particularly under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the ITPA.
Recent decisions such as Nitin v. State of U.P. (2026), Husanali Kurbanali Vakil (2026), Jigar Dushyantbhai Desai (2026) and Ashish Chubey (2025) demonstrate this judicial approach.
But Section 7 requires particular caution because High Courts have taken conflicting views about whether its wording extends to customers. The Supreme Court itself recognised this divergence in Prajwala in 2026.
And if allegations of rape, trafficking, coercion or another independent offence are made, the analysis changes completely.
The key question is not simply: “Were you caught inside the spa?”
It is:
“What exactly did you do, what offence has been alleged against you, and do the facts actually satisfy every ingredient of that offence?”
That is the question your lawyer should take to court.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for general legal awareness and does not constitute legal advice. The applicability of the ITPA and other criminal laws depends on the exact facts, location, FIR, evidence, age and consent of the persons involved, nature of the premises and role attributed to the accused. A person facing arrest or criminal proceedings should obtain advice from a qualified criminal lawyer immediately.
