. yy % COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATl THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRUUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO rpiMlNAL PETITION NO: 4657 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH Between; 1. Shaik Nowshad, S/o Thameem Naidu Street, Naidupet Town Aged about 29 years, Mangapathi and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court 1. The State Of Andhra of Andhra Pradesh, at Amravati. 2. Talari Hymavathi,, W/o Sekhar, Aged 27 years, Rajagopalapuram , Mandal.Talari @ Kannan Leela Rani, Aged 8 her mother natural Gurdian Talari Hymavathi Naidupeta Town and years. Rep. by L_ ...RESPONDENTS 438 of Cr.P.C., & NEW SECTION 480 in the circumstances stated in the Petition under Section 437 & & 483 OF BNSS, 2023. praying that in Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the Petitioner / Accused on bail in of Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Sexual Offences Act (POCSO the High Court may be POCSO. S.C.No. 47 pleased to release of 2025 on the file of the Court Offences under Protection of Children from Crime No. 231 of 2024 dt Nellore, SPSR Nellore District in Act) Cases 05.08.2024 on the file of Naidupet District for offences leveled against the petitioner Urban Police Station, SPSR Nellore under Section 65 (2) of BNS 6 r/w 5(m) POCSO Act 2012. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Siv^prasad Reddy Venati, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following order: <39 % 1 APHC010219582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] THURSDAY. THE EIGTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4657/2025 Between: Shaik Nowshad ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S); 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 1. BNSS’), has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking regular bail in Cr.No.231/2024 of Naidupet Urban Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. 2. The above crime was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 65(2) of of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and Sections 6 r/w 5(m) of POCSO Act 2012. 3. The Prosecution’s case, in brief, is that the victim girl, an 8-year-old girl studying in the 3'"'^ standard, is the daughter of the defacto complainant. The > 2 petitioner / accused, aged 29 years Dharga, Naidupet. On 04.08.2024, at around 8.00 runs an aquarium shop at Chinna PM, while the victim girl was playing in the street, the petitioner / accused forcibly took her to MPP school on his bicycle, there he undressed the victim girl and he also undressed himself and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl and when the victim girl raised cries due to pain, one Balu went there and beaten the petitioner / accused and thereafter, the petitioner / accused left the place. Based on the report of defacto complainant of victim girl, this case is registered against the accused. i.e., mother 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no connection with the present case and has been falsely implicated police; there was a delay in lodging the report; investigation is completed, the charge sheet has been filed, and the by the case IS posted for committal; hence, there is no risk of evidence tampering; the petitioner’s earlier bail applications i.e., CrI.M.P.No.790/2024 (dismissed on 08.10.2024), Crl.M.P.No.986/2024 (05.02.2025), Crl.M.P.No.103/2025 (06.03.2025), and Crl.M.P.No.319/2024 (11.04.2024), were dismissed by the Special Judge for Speedy Trial under the POCSO Act, 2012; the petitioner undertakes to comply with any condition imposed by this Hon’ble Court. (22.11.2024) Crl.M.P.No.66/2024 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the investigation was completed and a charge sheet opposed granting bail by slating that if the Petitioner is released on bail, he will threaten the witnesses. submitted was filed but 6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the Petition as well as in the report. Consequently, the contentions raised by learned be reproduced. counsel need not 3 7. In Masroor V. State of U.P.\ a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: Though at the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided, but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. 13. ... As seen from the record, the Victim is a minor girl of 8 years of age, who was studying standard. The charge sheet reveals that on the evening of 04.03.2024, the victim girl and her younger brother collected Rs.20/- from 8. LW.1 (defacto complainant) and went to the accused’s shop to buy aquarium fish; while they were returning home, the accused followed them, forcibly took both children to MPP school on his cycle, and entered school premises by jumping over the compound wall; then the accused removed the clothes of the the floor and also removed his clothes and committed the victim. Thus, in light of the victim, laid her on aggravated penetrative sexual assault on of the charge sheet, it refutes the petitioner's contention that he has contents no connection to the present case. Dharmander Singh @ Saheb V. The State (Govt, of NOT, Delhi) , the High Court of Delhi observed some parameters to deal with the bail to the POCSO offences. The court emphasized the (jjff0rence between the victim and the accused, noting greater age gap may indicate a higher degree of perversion in the alleged offence. 9. In applications pertaining significance of the age that a its discretion in a judicious The Court granting bail should exercise matter of course and reasons for grant of bail in cases 10. manner and not as a involving serious offences should be given. [See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V. ' (2009) 14 see 286 ^ 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 1033 4 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^] 11. In support of the Prosecution’s case, prosecution has recorded the statement of material witnesses and the material placed supports the prosecution’s case. Based on the FSL report, there is a possibility of penetrative sexual assault. There is material on record connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence under Section 65(2) of BNS and Sections 6 r/w 5(m) of POCSO Act 2012. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court from the material on record or otherwise, causing the victim girl to implicate the petitioner falsely in the present case. 12. Before adverting to the merits of the case, this Court would like to clarify that while the filing of a charge sheet is a significant factor in granting bail, it is not the sole criterion to be considered. This must be evaluated in conjunction with the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. Filing of the charge sheet establishes that after due investigation, the investigation agency, having found materials, has placed the charge sheet for the trial of the petitioner. In the present matter, although the charge sheet has been filed, the defacto complainant’s statements, as recorded, specifically highlight the key role played by the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. 13. 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 14. ^ (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 5 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. Given above, considering the cumulative effect of entire facts and circumstances, without commenting upion 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 fhe 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. 15. 16. As a result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- K.KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To The Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) Cases, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District One CC to Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] Three CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. RAM HIGH COURT DATED:08/05/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4657 of 2025 « Be sep ^*^^tcheo * DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION