SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Telangana) 278

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Venu Gopal Naredla Venugopal Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.3572 of 2021
Decided on : 13-07-2021

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376(3), 342, 323, 328, 506 and 109 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012 – Section 6 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 – Offence of Rape – Voluntarily causing hurt – Criminal intimidation – Charged - Petitioner herein are that parents of the victim were passed away in her childhood - Therefore her uncle joined victim in ‘Maruthi Orphanage’ in year - A.2 and A.3 are founders of said Orphanage - A.1 is regular donor to said Orphanage - About one year back, A.2 and A.3 had sent victim into a room to 5th floor of building to meet A.1, where he gave her a drink (juice), after consuming same, victim went into unconscious state when A.1 misbehaved with her - When she became conscious, she noticed that she was naked - When she informed same to A.2 and A.3, they threatened her not to reveal matter to anyone - One day as usual A.1 took her to her room and after some time he went off - Her friends who are staying in Orphanage, saw her naked and in unconscious state - When she wanted to go to her house, A.2 and A.3 did not allow her - On her informing same to her sister on phone, her brother-in-law took her to their home - Whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow accused to retain his freedom by enjoying concession of bail during trial – Held, Investigating Officer has recorded statements of inmates, who are orphans, of said ‘Maruthi Orphanage’ - They are staying in said ‘Maruthi Orphanage’ to which A.2 and A.3 are founders - Petitioner/A.1 is a donor - Petitioner herein and A.2 and A.3 are financially and politically sound and thus there is every possibility of the petitioner/A.1 tampering with evidence and tampering with witnesses and there is possibility of interdicting fair trial - As held by Hon’ble Apex Court public interest of fair trial would outweigh the personal interest of petitioner/A.1 - principle laid down by Apex Court in Anil Kumar Yadav (supra), rightly cancelled bail granted to petitioner herein and other accused vide impugned order dated - According to this Court, there is no error in it - It is a reasoned and well founded order - It does not warrant any interference by this Court in invocation of inherent powers - Petitioner herein has failed to make out a case to interfere with impugned order and same is liable to be dismissed - Criminal Petition is dismissed.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner/A.1 to quash the order dated 28.12.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2020 in Crl.M.P.No.651 of 2020 in Cr.No.218 of 2020 of Ameenpur Police Station by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Medak at Sangareddy. The petitioner is A.1 in the said crime. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein/A.1 and A.2 and A.3 are under Sections 376(3), 342, 323, 328, 506 and 109 of IPC, and under Section 5(1) read with 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the Act’)

2. Heard Sri GVNRSSS Varaprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner herein/A.1 and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3.i) The allegations against the petitioner herein are that the parents of the victim were passed away in her childhood. Therefore her uncle joined the victim in ‘Maruthi Orphanage’ in the year 2015. A.2 and A.3 are the founders of the said Orphanage. A.1 is regular donor to the said Orphanage. About one year back, A.2 and A.3 had sent the victim into a room to 5th floor of the building to meet A.1, where he gave her a drink (juice), after consuming the same, the victim went into unconscious state when A.1 misbehaved with her. When she became conscious, she noticed that she was naked. When she informed the same to A.2 and A.3, they threatened her not to reveal the matter to anyone.

ii) Whenever A.1 comes to the Orphanage, A.2 and A.3 used to threaten her to sleep with A.1 and sent her to 5th floor. The victim noticed many times that A.1 used to give money to A.2 and A.3.

iii) One day as usual A.1 took her to her room and after some time he went off. Her friends who are staying in the Orphanage, saw her naked and in unconscious state. When she wanted to go to her house, A.2 and A.3 did not allow her. On her informing the same to her sister on phone, her brother-in-law took her to their home. After reaching home, she became sick and was taken to the hospital where doctors, after medical examination, advised to take her to Police Station, where the police registered a case in Cr.No. 218 of 2020 for the aforesaid offences.

iv) During the course of investigation, as the victim became sick, she was admitted in Niloufer hospital, on 07.08.2020 and later she went into coma and died on 12.08.2020.

v) The petitioner herein/A.1 and A.2 and A.3 have filed an application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.651 of 2020 in Cr.No.218 of 2020 seeking regular bail before learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy and the said Court vide order dated 27.10.2020 granted bail to the petitioner herein/A.1 and A.2 and A.3 on the following grounds:-

    a) There is no question of interference by the accused in the investigation.

b) The Investigating Officer has completed investigation in Cr.No.218 of 2020 and submitted the draft charge sheet to the Public Prosecutor who has received the same and finalized.

c) Relevant witnesses were also examined.

d) Accused were in remand for a period of 82 days.

e) Guilt or innocence of the petitioner is the matter of trial.

f) The Court below has granted bail to the petitioner herein and other accused on the said grounds.

4. The prosecution has filed a petition under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2020 in Crl.M.P. No.651 of 2020 in Cr.No.218 of 2020 seeking cancellation of the said bail granted to the accused vide order dated 27.10.2020 on the following grounds:-

    i) A.1 to A.3 are charged under Section 5(1) read with 6 of the Act, and there is a statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Act, which clearly states that for the offences committed under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such persons have committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved.

ii) The Investigating Officer (

                      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                      1
                      2
                      3
                      4
                      5
                      6
                      7
                      8
                      9
                      10
                      11
                      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                      supreme today icon
                      logo-black

                      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                      Please visit our Training & Support
                      Center or Contact Us for assistance

                      qr

                      Scan Me!

                      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                      whatsapp-icon Back to top