APHC010401762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8121/2025 Between: PAGADALA HARSHAVARDHAN @ SIDDHU, S/O. KOTESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,MUNDHADUGU COLONY, BANDARU GUDEM ROAD, TELAPROLU VILLAGE,UNGUTURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2. VICTIM 3. MOTHER OF THE VICTIM GIRL ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. R SAMBI REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3. LEGAL AID 2 The Court made the following 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 No.4 on bail in Crime No.31 of 2025 of Atkuru Police Station, Krishna District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.4 herein for the offence punishable under Section 70(2), 87, 96 and 127(3) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Section 6 read with Section 5 & 6 r/w 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity ‘the POCSO Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl is aged about 14 years and on 09.03.2025, the victim girl attended a local festival along with one Chandrika, who is her neighbor at G.Konduru Village and found missing from Veerapanenigudem Village, since 13.03.2023 at 9.00 AM. Basing on the report of the complainant, initially a case in the above crime was registered under the head of Girl missing. During investigation, on the night of 17.03.2025 the victim girl was traced at Vijayawada and on 18.03.2025 morning she was sent for medical examination at Old GGH, Vijayawada, when examined by the WSI, the victim girl stated that on 13.03.2025 night at about 9.30 PM when she came outside, two unknown personal without her will and consent had sexual intercourse at the outskirts of Veerapanenigudem village in an isolated place, brought her to 3 another place and handed over to Accused Nos.3 and 4 and they took her to an isolated placed, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her, further brought her to the house of Accused No.5 on a two wheeler situated at Kesarapalli Village, Gannavaram Mandal by procuring her with deceitful words that they will take her to her parents’ house. Later, on 14.03.2025 Accused Nos.3 & 4 along with 6 to 8 came to her and all the five persons had sexual intercourse with her several times up to the night of 17.03.2025. Thereafter, A-3 dropped her at Kesarapalli center on a two wheeler. Thereafter, on the information of Machavaram police, Atkuru police along with the parents of the victim girl went to Machavaram police station and secured the victim girl. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is permanent resident of Telaprolu Village, Unguturu Mandal of Krishna District. He undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. The petitioner was arrested on 18.03.2025. He is in jail for the past 150 days. In the light of the foregoing, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 4 4. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed for granting of bail to the petitioner. She submits that investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. There are four adverse antecedents against the petitioner, in which, two cases are under Section 379 of ‘the IPC’, and two cases are under ‘the NDPS Act’. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioner on bail at this stage may result in non-cooperation from the Petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the Petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 5. Learned Legal Aid Counsel appeared on behalf of the 2nd respondent reiterated the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and urged to dismiss the criminal petition. 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: 5 “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 7. As seen from the record, the allegations against the petitioner/A-4 is that he had involved in committing gag rape of a victim girl, aged 14 years at the time of the alleged offence. The Date of Birth of the victim is 10.08.2011. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are Juveniles. It is an aggregative form of penetrative sexual assault alleged against the petitioner. Nearly eight (8) members have committed repeatedly the alleged gang rape on the victim. At the first instance, A-1 to A-3 allegedly committed rape on the victim, later A-3 and A-4 are also participated in the gang rape. There is CC TV footage alleging the presence of the accused at the relevant point of time. The accusation is well founded. Brutal and heinous offence alleged to have been committed repeatedly by the petitioner along with others in a span of two days. More importantly the hair of the petitioner was seized. Charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner has been in the judicial custody for the past 150 days. There are four adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner as submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. CONCLUSION: 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.4, the release of the petitioner on bail would potentially pose a threat to the life and 6 safety of the victim. There are no merits in the present petition. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 15.09.2025 KA 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8121/2025 Date: 15.09.2025 KA