IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE honourable SRI JUST^ci TJUIALLIKARJUNA RAoVp CRIMINAL petition Mn- PRADESH AT AMARAVATI or II zo 4326 OF 209.*^ Between: Shaik Rabbanr, s/o Late JilanI Basha, Aged about 35 H.No. 11-41, Ranipeta Chevireddipalle (Rural) Nellore, SPSR Nellore District years, R/o ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 AND The State of Andhra Venkatagiri Police Station, Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Pradesh, Through Station House Officer represented by its Public At Amaravathi Tirupathi District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. is fiied praying that the Memorandum of Grounds may be pleased to release the in the circumstances stated i Petition, the High Court Crime No.23/2025 in of Criminal petitioner on bail in Oistriot, in the intere: ^ ' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon of Grounds of Criminal Petition Sarvotham Reddy, Advocate perusing the Memorandum arguments of Sri B Prosecutor and upon hearing the for the Petitioner and the Public on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010204152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4326/2025 Between: Shaik Rabbani ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. B SARVOTHAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.,’), has been filed by the petitioner herein/A.1 seeking regular bail, in Crime No.23 of 2025 of Venkatagiri Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 376(AB), 376(3), 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), section 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’), sections 6 r/w 5(j)(ll)(L)(m)(n) of the POCSO Act and sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 1) 2) The case of the prosecution, in brief is that, the victim girl, aged standard at AP Tribal approximately 15 years, is currently studying 10 th 2 r-/ Welfare residential school. While the victim girl standard, the petitioner (A.1), who was cohabiting with her mother, allegedly committed aggravated penetrative sexual was studying in the 6*^ assault on the victim girl by threatening to leave her mother and stopped supporting their welfare. He also the incident. warned that her mother would beat her if she disclosed Thereafter, the petitioner (A.1) is alleged to have continued to aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl whenever she returned home for holidays. commit until she completed her 9*'" standard. Subsequently, due to disputes, the petitioner (A.1) separated from the victim’s mother. While so, in the months of October and November 2024 relative of the victim girl, allegedly committed aggravated penetrative assault on her at her house site, resulting in her becoming pregnant. Based on the victim girl’s report, this case is registered against the petitioner (A.1) and A.2. . A.2, a sexual 3) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is A2 who committed the alleged offence, and the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to personal animosity; the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.02.2025; the investigation is nearly complete, with only the medical reports pending; therefore, there is no likelihood of the petitioner tampering with witnesses or evidence; a previous bail application (Crl.M.P.No.212 of 2025) was filed before the Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Nellore, and was dismissed on 21.03.2025; the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigating authorities for the expeditious completion of the investigation. Hence, the counsel prays for the petitioner’s release on bail. 4) On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the investigation is still ongoing. I have heard Sri B. Sarvotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner / A.1 and Sri G. Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public 5) Prosecutor for the 3 Respondent / State. Learned counsel on either side reiterated their submissions, which are on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report. As per the record, the de facto complainant/victim is a 15-year-old minor girl. The prosecution alleges that this case involves aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. While the victim was studying in grades 6 to 9, the petitioner (A.1) was cohabiting with her mother. During this period, he allegedly threatened the victim, stating that he would neglect both her welfare and her mother’s if she disclosed anything to her. Under this threat, the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. In Dharmander Singh @ Saheb V. The State (Govt, of NCT, Delhi) , 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. 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 Ranjan^, Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta V. Central Bureau of Investigation & another^, Vinod Bhandari V. State of Madhya Pradesh"^, and Lt Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit V. State of Maharashtra^ 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 Yadav^] 6) 7) 8) 9) ^ 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 1033 " (2004) 7 see 528 (2012) 4 see 134, para 32 ^ (2016) 15 see 389, paral3 = (2018) 11 see 458, para 29) (2017) 2 see 178, para 15 4 In support of the Prosecution’s case, Prosecution has recorded the of material witnesses and the material placed supports the 10) statement Prosecution’s case. There is evidence on record connecting the petitioner with alleged offence under Section 376(AB), 376(3), 506 of IPC, section 65(1) sections 6 r/w 5a)(ll)(L)(m)(n) of the POCSO Act and sections the of the BNS, 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court from the material on record or otherwise, causing the victim to implicate the petitioner falsely in the present case. Indeed, pre-trial imprisonment cannot be used as a substitute for the without the scrutiny of the evidence by the trial Court, but, at the ^here a girl was in such a situation, as referred to 11) punishment same time, in a case above, grant of bail to the petitioner, at this stage, may also have an adverse impact on the society. It is not necessary now to go into detail about the correctness or of the allegations made against the accused as this is a subject 12) otherwise matter to be dealt with by the trial Judge. considering the cumulative effect of entire facts and the merits of the evidence and keeping in viev^The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other factojrs,, like the ndture 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. 13) Given above, circumstances, without commenting upon As a result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed 14) Sd/- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri, Tirupathi District. 2. The Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, 2012, Nellore. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, SPSR Nellore District. 4. The Station House Officer, Venkatagiri Police Station, Tirupathi District. 5. One CC to Sri B Sarvotham Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies RDB RAM / HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4326 of 2025 & C3 2025 o» ntSectio CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED