Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1070 (AP)

Ganganapalli Sunil v. Station House Officer

2025-09-23

Y.LAKSHMANA RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1. The Criminal Petition Nos. 7654, 8683 and 9260 of 2025 have been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’) Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioners/accused Nos. 2, 1 and 3 respectively, for granting bail in connection with Crime No.29 of 2025 of Nellore Rural Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 87, 64(2)(m), 65(1) and 351(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘the BNS’) and Section 6 read with 5(L) read with 17 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’). 2. These three Criminal Petition Nos. 7654, 8683 and 9260 of 2025 are heard and disposed of by way of this common order, as the petitioners in these petitions are accused in the same crime. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the victim girl aged 13 years studying 7 th standard is the daughter of defacto complainant, on 29.01.2025 the victim girl boarded the school van driven by the accused No.2, on the way when the victim girl informed the driver i.e. accused No.2 that she is getting vomiting, accused No.2 stopped the van, the accused No.1, who was the then driver of school van taken the victim girl with him on his motor cycle to drop her at home, accused No.1 has taken to Koduru beach along with another person i.e., petitioner/accused No.3 herein, accused No.1 beaten the victim girl and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl forcibly and threatened victim girl to kill if she reveals to anyone. Thereafter accused No.1 made the victim girl board school van and in the said van also the accused No.1 again committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl and on knowing the same, the mother of victim girl i.e. defacto complainant herein gave report to the police and this case is registered against the petitioner/accused No.3 and other accused. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 5. Mr. C. Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.7654 of 2025, Mr. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 5. Mr. C. Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.7654 of 2025, Mr. Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.8683 of 2025 and Mr. P. Mallikharjuna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.9260 of 2025 submits that all the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the Petitioners. The Petitioners undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners. 6. It is further submitted that the Petitioners have permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 7. Per contra, Sri Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioners on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non- cooperation from the Petitioners. The prosecution further apprehends that the Petitioners, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the Petitioners absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioners does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 9. 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 9. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 10. The victim is aged about 13 years. She is steadying 7 th class. She is the daughter of the defacto complainant. The accused No.1 committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. The accused No.3 watched the moment of the public when the accused No.1 committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. The accused No.3 has got adverse history of criminal antecedents. He was involved in Crime No.179 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 379 read with 34 of I.P.C. of Nellore Rural Police Station. He was acquitted in that case. A case in Crime No.163 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 290, 323, 324, 448 and 506 of I.P.C. of Vedayapalem Police Station, Crime No.33 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 448 and 506 of I.P.C of Vedayapalem Police Station; Crime No.130 of 2017 for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. of Vedayapalem Police Station, but those cases ended in compromise. The victim belongs to S.T. Yerukula Community. The provisions of ‘SC & ST (POA) Act’ would not applicable as the accused are also belongs to SC Mala community. The accused No.1 was previously working as a school van driver. He picked up the victim under the pretext of dropping her at home, but instead took her to Koduru Beach. On the way, he picked up accused No.2. Accused No.1 also threatened the victim with dire consequences. The charge sheet was filed on 08.04.2025 and the same numbered as Sessions Case No.72 of 2025 on the file of Special Judge for Speedy Trial of POCSO Act Case at Nellore. The accusations against the petitioners are well-founded. 11. Mr. P. Mallikharjuna Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.9260 of 2025 relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deshraj @ Musa vs. State of Rajasthan , 2024 Supreme Online (SC) 10009 (Crl. The accusations against the petitioners are well-founded. 11. Mr. P. Mallikharjuna Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.9260 of 2025 relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deshraj @ Musa vs. State of Rajasthan , 2024 Supreme Online (SC) 10009 (Crl. A. No. 004126 of 2024) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, while emphasizing the need to balance the rights of the accused with the seriousness of the charges, enlarged the accused on bail subject to certain stringent conditions 12. In that case, the accused was only 18½ years old, while the victim was 16 years old, and there existed a consensual relationship between the parties. In contrast, in the present case, the victim is only 13 years old, and the offence amounts to an aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Hence, the facts and circumstances of Deshraj @ Musa’s case are altogether different from those of the instant case. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deshraj @ Musa’s case, with great respect, cannot be applied to the present case. Therefore, the said decision does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 3 in Crl. Pet. No. 9260 of 2025. 13. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations leveled against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to consider request of petitioners for enlarging the petitioners on bail at this juncture. CONCLUSION: 14. In the result, the Criminal Petition Nos. 7654, 8683 and 9260 of 2025 are dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.