1 APHC010133072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2860/2025 Between: Chinthada Durga Rao, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. B.MADHU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner/sole accused, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.87 of 2024 of Disha Police Station, Vijayawada District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 65(2), 64(2)(m), 351 of BNS and Section 6 r/w 5(m)(n) of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’). 2. The Prosecution's case outlines that prior to 12.08.2024, near Darga, Harijanawada, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, the accused being the grandfather 2 in relation to the victim minor girl aged about 11 years and who is a tailor by profession used to take the victim girl into his backside room and he used to touch her breast while she went to his house in order to enquire about the uniform given for stitching while returning from tuition. The accused threatened her and committed sexual assault on her by putting his penis into her mouth and vaginal part, due to which the victim girl is suffering from throat pain and unable to consume food. In the similar manner, the accused committed sexual assault against the victim girl till 09.08.2024. In this connection a case in Crime No.87 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 65(2), 64(2)(m), 351 of BNS and Section 6 r/w 5(m)(n) of POCSO Act. 3. The learned counsel representing the Petitioner asserts that the Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14.08.2024; the Petitioner is falsely implicated as accused in the present crime, and there exists no material evidence to demonstrate his involvement in the commission of the offence; all the material witnesses have been examined, and the entire of the investigation has been concluded, with the exception of filing the charge sheet. 4. On the contrary, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the granting of bail to the petitioner. 5. I have heard both sides. The learned counsels on both sides have reiterated their submissions, aligning with the contentions outlined in the petition as well as in the report. 3 6. As seen from the record, the Defacto complainant/Victim is a minor girl of 11 years of age. According to the Prosecution, it is a case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault and sexual exploitation committed on the victim girl by the Accused on the pretext of stitching of uniform. 7. In Dharmander Singh @ Saheb V. The State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi)1, the High Court of Delhi observed some parameters to deal with the bail applications pertaining to the POCSO offences. 8. 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 Ranjan2; Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta V. Central Bureau of Investigation & another3; Vinod Bhandari V. State of Madhya Pradesh4; and Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit V. State of Maharashtra5] 9. 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 Yadav6] 10. In the instant case, as can be seen from the case of the prosecution, there was aggravated penetrative sexual assault and sexual exploitation committed on the victim girl aged 11 years. Upon review of the material on 1 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 1033 2 (2004) 7 SCC 528 3 (2012) 4 SCC 134, para 32 4 (2016) 15 SCC 389, para13 5 (2018) 11 SCC 458, para 29) 6 (2017) 2 SCC 178, para 15 4 record, no indication has been brought to the Court's notice suggesting that the victim girl falsely implicated the Petitioner in the present case. 11. Indeed, pre-trial imprisonment cannot be used as a substitute for the punishment without the scrutiny of the evidence by the trial Court, but, at the same time, in a case where a girl was in such a situation, as referred to above, grant of bail to the Petitioner, at this stage, may also have an adverse impact on the society. 12. It is not necessary now to go into detail about the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the Accused as this is a subject matter to be dealt with by the trial Judge. The period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the Petitioner/Accused to be enlarged on bail. 13. Given above, considering the cumulative effect of entire facts and circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the evidence and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other factors, like the serious nature of the offence, the manner, in which it has been committed and its impact on the society, Petitioner is not entitled to bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 14. As a result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Date: 25.03.2025. S D P 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2860 of 2025 Date: 25.03.2025 S D P