HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J
Muppalla Chiranjeevi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2263/2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of bail application and nature of charges. (Para 1 , 2) |
1. This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C ., has been filed by the Petitioner/accused, seeking regular bail in P.S.C.No.3 of 2024 before the Court of Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act 2012, Nellore (Cr.No.35/2023 of Balayapalli Police Station).
2. The above crime was registered against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC and section 6 r/w 50’)(ii)(l)
of POCSO Act 2012.
3. The Prosecution’s case, in brief, is that the victim girl was aged about 13 years. She used to attend bhajana and kolatam classes run by the Petitioner. As such, the victim girl got acquaintance with the Petitioner. Taking advantage of the same, the Petitioner used to visit the victim girl’s house during temporary absence of her inmates. Petitioner made victim girl to believe him with his deceitful words and sexually assaulted the victim girl repeatedly since October, 2022 and made her pregnant. When asked by her parents, the victim girl has informed the same to her parents and then they gave report.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is innocent and he never committed any offence and he is falsely implicated in this case. The Petitioner never committed sexual assault on victim girl, in view of previous grudges, this false case is foisted against the Petitioner. Entire investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed and POCSO Sessions number also assigned and that the Petitioner is having perrhanent abode and prays to enlarge him on bail.
5. On the other hand learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation was completed and charge sheet also filed, but opposed to grant bail by stating that if the Petitioner is released on bail, he will threaten the witnesses. He filed copy of DMA report which shows that the Petitioner is the biological father of the baby born to victim girl and the victim girl is the biological mother to the baby born to her. This clearly indicates that the Petitioner committed sexual assault on the victim and prays to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition as well as in the report.
7. As seen from the record, the Defacto complainantA/ictim is a minor girl of 13 years of age. According to the Prosecution, it is a case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault and sexual exploitation committed on the victim girl, while she was attending bhajana and kolatam classes run by the Accused.
8. In Dharmander Singh @ Saheb V. The State (Govt, of NOT, Delhi)\ the High Court of Delhi observed some parameters to deal with the bail applications pertaining to the POCSO offences. The court emphasized the significance of the age difference between the victim and the accused, noting that a greater age gap may indicate a higher degree of perversion in the alleged offence.
9. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and reasons for grant of bail in cases involving serious offences should be given. [See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V. Rajesh Ranjan ^\ Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta V. Central Bureau of Investigation & another^] Vinod Bhandari V. State of Madhya Pradesh'*] and Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit V. State ofMaharashtra^]
^ 2020 0Supreme(Del) 1033 ^ (2004) 7 see 528 ^ (2012) 4 see 134, pat3 32
10. At the time of assigning reasons in order to grant/refuse bail, there should not be discussion of merits and demerits of the evidence. [See State of Bihar V. Rajballav Prasad @ Rajballav Prasad Yadav @ Rajballabh Yadav ^]
11. In support of the Prosecution’s case, Prosecution has recorded the statement of material witnesses and the material placed supports the Prosecution’s case. DNA report also prima facie, falsifies the Petitioner’s contention. DNA report sho
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.