Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 13717
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
P ATHAN . KAREEM KHAN @ FEROZ KHAN @ FEROZ – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7099/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHAIK MAZHAR
For the Respondents: SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, LEGAL AID
The court denied bail based on the ongoing investigation and the seriousness of the alleged crimes, emphasizing that release could hinder justice.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 and 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 61 - POCSO Act - Bail application filed in connection with sexual offences. (Paras 1, 7)
(B) The court emphasized the gravity of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, concluding that the petitioner’s release could obstruct legal proceedings. (Paras 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of aiding in the abduction and rape of a victim, resulting in serious charges under the BNS and POCSO Act.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no merit in granting bail given the well-founded accusations and ongoing investigation.
Issues: The main issue was whether bail should be granted considering the gravity of the accusations and the stage of investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the seriousness of the alleged offence and the potential for the accused to evade the legal process justified the refusal of bail.
Result: The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application and context of alleged offense. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's evaluation of evidence and risk factors. (Para 5) |
| 4. decision on the bail application. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. final result of the petition. (Para 8) |
ORDER
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 4 80 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS S ’) by the petitioner/Accused for granting of bail in connection with Crime No.233 of 2025 of Penamaluru Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS ’) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act .
2. The case of the prosecution is that On 16.04.2025 at around 8.00 p.m., when the victim girl along with one Karishma were going on foot and reached near Surya School, Kanuru Village, the petitioner/accused while going through the same area, stopped his bike and asked the victim girl and Karishma to get on the bike and took them to Sri Sai Sudha Community Hall. In the meantime, one Abdul Ghani came there on another bike and took the victim girl to the bushes situated beside Surya School, removed her clothes and committed rape on her one after another and after that, the petitioner/accused picked up the victim girl and dropped her near Surya School and went away. On the report given by mother of victim girl, a case in Crime No.233/2025, U/Secs.64(1) B.N.S and Sec.4 of POCSO Act on 19.04.2025 at 23.30 hours and investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer obtained birth certificate of victim girl and altered the section of law to 70(1), 351(2) of B.N.S and arrested the accused on 21.04.2025 at Mahadevapuram Colony, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, produced him before the court for judicial remand. Since then, the petitioner/accused has been in judicial custody.
3. Sri. Shaik Mazhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, he is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
6. As seen from the record, the petitioner/accused was arrested on .21.04.2025, ever since, he has been in the judicial custody. The charge sheet has already been filed in this case. The victim in this case is approximately 18 years and 10 months old. It is well-founded that the accused and another individual, Abdul Ghani, had been engaging in intercourse with the victim since the alleged offence. The duration of detention in judicial custody is immaterial.
7. In view of the above, as the accusation is well-founded against the petitioner, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture is not found to be convincing or reasonable. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. However, since the case of the petitioner is under trial, the learned trial Court is directed to give preference for disposal of the case as early as possible within a period of six (06) months from this date.
8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
