APHC010161522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3408/2025 Between: Aasadi Yoganandh @ Praveen ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SRINIVASU L Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner herein/accused, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.14 of 2025 of KVB Puram Police Station, Tirupathi, registered for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)n, 420 IPC, 5(l)(j)(ii) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that since April 30, 2022 the victim has been working in Varsha Fruits Company. The accused was also working in the same company as operator. The accused by promising the victim that he would marry her had sexual intercourse several times and due to that, the victim became pregnant. Though the victim asked the accused to marry her, 2 TMR, J Crl.P.No.3408_2025 he refused and thereby cheated her. The victim is aged 17 years and is carrying 7th month pregnancy. Basing on the report of the de facto complainant, the present crime is registered. 3. Heard. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 15.02.2025 and most of the investigation is completed. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes to grant bail on the ground that investigation is not completed. 6. 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. The court emphasized the significance of the age difference between the victim and the accused, noting that a greater age gap may indicate a higher degree of perversion in the alleged offence. 7. 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] 8. 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 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) 3 TMR, J Crl.P.No.3408_2025 of Bihar V. Rajballav Prasad @ Rajballav Prasad Yadav @ Rajballabh Yadav6]. 9. In support of the Prosecution’s case, the victim has been working in Varsha Fruits Company whereas the accused is also working in the same company as operator. By promising the victim to marry, the accused had sexual intercourse with her several times and due to that on 28.06.2024 the victim became pregnant and the victim is aged about 17 years. Now she is carrying 7th month pregnancy. 10. 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. 11. 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. Where prima facie involvement of the accused is apparent, the contentions raised regarding the contradictions in the charge sheet are required to be tested at the time of trial, but not at this stage. The period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the petitioner/accused to be enlarged on bail. 12. Given above, considering the cumulative effect of entire facts and circumstances and the serious nature of the accusation made against the petitioner, 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 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. 6 (2017) 2 SCC 178, para 15 4 TMR, J Crl.P.No.3408_2025 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J 09.04.2025 Vjl