Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 549
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
Govind Mariyanna - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 4252 of 2020
Decided On : 16-10-2020
Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, Advocate
The heinous nature of the crime and the involvement of assaulting the modesty of a minor girl influenced the court's decision to dismiss the petition for anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Assaulting Modesty of Minor Girl - The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail considering the heinous nature of the crime and the fact that it involved assaulting the modesty of a minor girl.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition for anticipatory bail in a case involving offenses under Section 354-A IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner misbehaved with a minor girl who was taking tuition from him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that due to the heinous nature of the crime, involving assaulting the modesty of a minor girl, the petitioner's case was not fit for grant of anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in a case involving assaulting the modesty of a minor girl.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the heinous nature of the crime and the fact that it involved assaulting the modesty of a minor girl, leading to the dismissal of the petition for anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.52 of 2019 of Machavaram Police Station, Krishna District.
3. The offences registered against him are under Section 354-A IPC and under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act").
4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the daughter of the de facto complainant, who is a minor girl, is taking tuition with the petitioner, who is their house owner. The petitioner misbehaved with the minor girl by placing his hands on her chest and behaved indecently. It was witnessed by the neighbors. Therefore, the petitioner has committed aforesaid offences.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
6. Having regard to the facts of the case, as it is a case of assaulting the modesty of a minor girl, who is aged about ten years and having regard to the heinous nature of crime in which the petitioner is involved, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
