2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 75659
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
Bandari Sampath – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP 8101/2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8101 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the petitioner/accused seeking bail in S.C.POCSO No.25 of 2024 on the file of the LRAT-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.
2. Heard Mr.P.V.L.S.Sri Chakrapani, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is accused in Crime No.158 of 2024 of KUC P.S., Warangal District, registered for the offences under Sections 376 r/w 511, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 9 r/w 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’). He further submitted that the said crime was registered on 21.03.2024 and the petitioner was arrested and produced before the concerned Court and he was sent to judicial custody on 22.03.2024 and after expiry of 72 days, the concerned Court has granted bail to the petitioner on 06.06.2024. The investigating officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet before the learned LRAT-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, and the same was numbered as S.C.POCSO No.25 of 2024 and the learned Sessions Judge issued NBW against the petitioner on 03.02.2025 for his non- appearance and at that stage, the petitioner had approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.2054 of 2025, seeking recall of NBW issued against him and this Court disposed of the said petition on 13.02.2025, directing the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court on or before 20.03.2025 and file recall petition and on such application, the trial Court is directed to consider the same on the same day and till such surrender of the petitioner, the NBW shall not be executed. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed application seeking recall of NBW issued against him and the Court below dismissed the said application on 19.03.2025. He further submitted that the Police executed NBW against the petitioner on 29.05.2025 and he was produced before the Court below and the Court below has sent the petitioner to judicial custody on the same day and since then he is in judicial custody. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to prosecute the proceedings pending before the Court below and also abide by the conditions which are going to be imposed by this Court.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, despite the specific direction issued by this Court in Crl.P.No.2054 of 2025 while disposing of the said petition dated 13.02.2025, the petitioner has not surrendered before the Court below within the stipulated time, on the other hand filed application seeking recall of NBW before the Court below and the said Court dismissed the said application on 19.03.2025. He further submitted that as the petitioner had not surrendered before the Court below and escaped from the Court, the NBW issued against the petitioner was executed on 29.05.2025 and the Court below rightly sent the petitioner to the judicial custody. He further submitted that the petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No.297 of 2025 in S.C (P) No.25 of 2024 seeking grant of bail, which was dismissed by the Court below on 24.06.2025. While dismissing the application, the Court observed that the victim and her mother had appeared before it and stated that the petitioner was compelling them to compromise the case for an amount of Rs.1 Crore, and had also threatened to kill them in case of non-compliance. The Court further observed that the matter is now posted for trial, the evidence of PW.1 has been recorded, and the case is pending for recording the evidence of the victim. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of