The court affirmed that bail can be denied in cases of aggravated sexual assault on minors, particularly when ongoing investigations may be compromised.

ORDER :

1. The Criminal Petition Nos. 7654, 8683 and 9260 of 2025 have been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’) Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioners/accused Nos. 2, 1 and 3 respectively, for granting bail in connection with Crime No.29 of 2025 of Nellore Rural Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 87, 64(2)(m), 65(1) and 351(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘the BNS’) and Section 6 read with 5(L) read with 17 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’).

2. These three Criminal Petition Nos. 7654, 8683 and 9260 of 2025 are heard and disposed of by way of this common order, as the petitioners in these petitions are accused in the same crime.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the victim girl aged 13 years studying 7^th standard is the daughter of defacto complainant, on 29.01.2025 the victim girl boarded the school van driven by the accused No.2, on the way when the victim girl informed the driver i.e. accused No.2 that she is getting vomiting, accused No.2 stopped the van, the accused No.1, who was the then driver of school van taken the victim girl with him on his motor cycle to drop her at home, accused No.1 has taken to Koduru beach along with another person i.e., petitioner/accused No.3 herein, accused No.1 beaten the victim girl and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl forcibly and threatened victim girl to kill if she reveals to anyone. Thereafter accused No.1 made the victim girl board school van and in the said van also the accused No.1 again committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl and on knowing the same, the mother of victim girl i.e. defacto complainant herein gave report to the police and this case is registered against the petitioner/accused No.3 and other accused.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:

5. Mr. C. Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.7654 of 2025, Mr. Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.8683 of 2025 and Mr. P. Mallikharjuna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.9260 of 2025 submits that all the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the Petitioners. The Petitioners undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners.

6. It is further submitted that the Petitioners have permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition.

ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE:

7. Per contra, Sri Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that th