THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10692 OF 2025

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-

accused seeking regular bail in connection with S.C. POCSO No.25 of 2024, on the file of learned LRAT-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.

2. Heard Sri T.Vasantha Rao, learned counsel representing Sri G.V.N.H Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was remanded in judicial custody on 22.03.2024 and after 72 days, bail was granted to the petitioner on 06.06.2024. On 03.02.2025 the trial Court issued NBW against the petitioner and after the petitioner approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.2054 of 2025 seeking recall of NBW. This Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court and file a recall petition on or before 20.03.2025. The petitioner filed recall petition, but the same was dismissed by the trial Court, and directed remand of the petitioner to judicial custody for non-appearance of the petitioner’s counsel. Owing to a miscommunication, the petitioner failed to surrender. However, the police handed over the petitioner to KUC PS, who executed the warrant and produced the petitioner before the trial Court, and he was remanded to judicial custody on 29.05.2025. Later, the petitioner filed a bail application before the trial Court, but the same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, he filed Criminal Petition No. 8101 of 2025 before this Court, which was also dismissed, directing the trial Court to decide and dispose of SC POCSO No.25 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three (03) months from 14.07.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the material witnesses have already been examined, and, as such, the counsel requested the Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the three-month period fixed by this Court from 14.07.2025 has not yet been completed as of today, and that the trial Court will conclude the trial very soon. As such, he prays the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Considering the submissions of both sides and the material available on record, it is observed that this Court has already fixed a time frame of three months from 14.07.2025 for conclusion of the trial. The present bail application has been filed before the expiry of the said period. As per the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the material part of the evidence has already been completed. In view of the same, the trial Court is directed to dispose of S.C. POCSO No.25 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the time frame already fixed by this vide Court order dated 14.07.2025 in Crl.P.No.8101 of

2025.

6. With the above direction, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J Date :09.09.2025 fm