THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7996/2025 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.94/2025 of Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station, Eluru District, registered against the petitioner/accused herein for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) & 118(1), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Section 5(1) read with 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity ‘the POCSO Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that prior to 15.04.2025 at approximately 2:30 p.m., at Kodigudem Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, the accused/Badugu Dileep, allegedly committed repeated acts of sexual assault upon the minor victim, aged 15 years, a student of Class IX at a School. It is alleged that the accused had been persistently following the victim during her daily commute by RTC bus, and by inducement through chocolates, soft drinks, and ice creams, gained her trust. On multiple occasions, he is said to have taken her on his motorcycle to secluded locations within Kodigudem Village, where he forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse against her will. When the victim resisted his advances, the accused allegedly assaulted her with a stick, causing injury to her right leg, and further issued criminal threats to deter her from disclosing the incidents. 2 The complainant, being sister of the victim, came to know of these acts through the victim and lodged a formal complaint on 18.04.2025 at 6:00 p.m, seeking legal action against the accused. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri G.Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is innocent and he never committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in this case due to family disputes. He further submits that the Petitioner has old aged parents, who are suffering from aliments and he has to look after their welfare. Petitioner has been in the judicial custody for the past 91 days. The Petitioner/Accused is a permeant resident of Kodigudem, Dwaraka Tirumala, as such, there are no chances to abscond and the entire investigation is completed. Hence, if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 4. 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 15 years, constituting grave offences under ‘the POCSO Act’. 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.M.P.No.493 of 2025 remains valid, as no change in circumstances has been demonstrated. In view of the seriousness of the offence and the need to 3 safeguard the victim’s interests, it is urged to dismiss the present bail application. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 7. The age of the victim is about 14 years and 3 months, 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’. He also beat the victim. After thorough investigation, the chargesheet has already been filed. Section 29 of ‘the POCSO Act.,’ lays down guilty of Petitioner shall be presumed until it is disproved by the Petitioner. Section 65(1) of ‘the BNS’ was also added to the case. Thus, the accusation is well founded against the Petitioner. Hence, there are no merits in the Petition at this juncture. CONCLUSION: 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 01.09.2025 4 VTS