APHC010378922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7840/2025 Between: 1.MEDURI ARJUN RAO ALIAS ARJUN, S/O. LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED ABWT 30 YEARS, OCC PVT SERVICE, R/O. TUKKULURU VILLAGE, NUZVID MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE KRISHNA DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, THROUGH S.H.O., GANNAVARAM TOWN POLICE STATION, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2.MOTHER OF VICTIM GIRL, A ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.RAMESH VODNALA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in Cr.No.71/2025 of Gannavaram Town Police Station, Krishna District, registered against the petitioner/accused herein for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) & 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity ‘the POCSO Act’). 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that prior to 22.02.2025 at approximately 18:00 hours, at Davajigudem Hamlet, Buddavaram Village, Gannavaram Mandal, the accused Meduri Arjun, who is alleged to be the paramour of the mother of the victim girl, committed repeated sexual assault upon a minor girl aged 14 years, daughter of the complainant. The incident was reported to the police on 22.02.2025 at 16:00 hours by the complainant, the mother of the victim girl. The complainant stated that she resides along with her family, which includes her son Santosh and her daughter, the victim girl, aged 14 years, who is a student of Class IX at Sacred English Medium School, Arugolanu Village, and ordinarily resides in the school hostel. During the summer vacation in April 2024, the victim girl returned to her maternal home at Davajigudem Village. It was during this period that the Accused Meduri Arjun allegedly lured the victim girl by making false promises, subjected her to criminal intimidation, and thereafter 3 committed sexual assault upon her on multiple occasions, amounting to five distinct instances. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. Sri V.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is contended that the allegations in the complaint are baseless, fabricated, and motivated by personal vendetta arising out of a strained domestic relationship between the Petitioner and the de-facto complainant. It is submitted that the Petitioner was in a live-in relationship with the mother of the victim for over nine years, during which period the children, including the victim, referred to him as their father. It was due to recent misunderstandings and domestic discord, the complainant has lodged the present complaint with exaggerated and concocted allegations, solely with an intent to harass and malign the Petitioner. 5. Learned counsel further submits that although the alleged incidents of sexual assault are stated to have commenced in April 2024 and culminated on 19.02.2025, the FIR was registered only on 22.02.2025. The delay in lodging the FIR remains unexplained and casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution’s case, suggesting that the complaint is an afterthought influenced by external or emotional factors. It is also submitted that despite the lapse of considerable time, the medical examination report of the victim has not been filed. The absence of medical or forensic evidence to substantiate the 4 allegations of repeated sexual assault renders the prosecution case weak and uncorroborated. The prosecution appears to rely solely on oral testimony, which lacks independent verification. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a law- abiding citizen with no prior criminal antecedents. He is employed at Apollo Pharmacy, Nuzvid, and also engages in labour work to support his aged mother. He has strong roots in society and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading trial. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.02.2025 and the investigation is substantially completed. Statements of material witnesses have been recorded under Section 180(3) of ‘the BNSS’, the scene of offence has been visited, and other procedural formalities have been concluded. Only filing of the final charge sheet remains pending, and therefore, continued incarceration of the petitioner serves no further investigative purpose. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner has already undergone more than 175 days of incarceration and the trial has not yet commenced. Prolonged detention without trial, in the absence of cogent evidence, amounts to a violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution. It is also submitted that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.6179 of 2025, which was dismissed on 01.07.2025. However, in view of the changed circumstances and completion of substantial investigation, the Petitioner seeks reconsideration for grant of regular bail; Petitioner would abide by any 5 conditions to be imposed by this Court; Petitioner has got fixed abode, hence, if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. 8. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that Petitioner stands accused of repeated sexual assault on a minor girl aged 14 years, constituting grave offences under ‘the POCSO Act’. The Petitioner, having resided with the victim’s family in a position of trust, allegedly exploited his proximity and status as a father figure, which aggravated his moral and legal culpability. The delay in lodging the FIR is reasonably explained, considering the trauma and emotional distress of the minor, and does not diminish the credibility of the allegations. 9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the Petitioner’s release at this stage may pose a threat to the victim and witnesses, given his prior domestic proximity. The prosecution emphasizes that mere duration of custody cannot justify bail in cases involving sexual violence against children. The earlier rejection of bail on merits in Crl.P.No.6179 of 2025 remains valid, as no change in circumstances has been demonstrated. In view of the seriousness of the offence and the need to safeguard the victim’s interests, it is urged to dismiss the present bail application. 10. Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen, learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2 also reiterates the submissions advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and supports the opposition to the grant of bail. 6 11. The age of the victim is about 14 years, she was studying IX class. In her statement recorded under Section 164 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ she had categorically alleged that the Petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of ‘the POCSO Act’. The chargesheet has already been filed. Thus, the accusation is well founded against the Petitioner. Hence, there are no merits in the Petition. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 13. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to complete the trial as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.08.2025 VTS