APHC010407742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. PASUMARTHI MADHAV ALIAS SAI, S/O P. RAVI KUMAR, AGED 20 YEARS, R/O 12-209, PORANKI VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, BEHIND SAIBABA TEMPLE, OPP TO VIGNAN BHARATHI SCHOOL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF PROCECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P, AMARAVATI. 2. Victim Name is hidden as per POCSO Act RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 04.09.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.P.NO.8307 OF 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. S RAJA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. RAVULA NAGARJUNA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3. LEGAL AID The Court made the following Order : IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8307 OF 2025 PASUMARTHI MADHAV ALIAS SAI, S/O P. RAVI KUMAR, AGED 20 209, PORANKI VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, BEHIND SAIBABA TEMPLE, OPP TO VIGNAN BHARATHI SCHOOL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROCECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P, AMARAVATI. Victim Name is hidden as per POCSO Act, RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 04.09.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.P.NO.8307 OF 2025 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAI Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): RAVULA NAGARJUNA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order : IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO PASUMARTHI MADHAV ALIAS SAI, S/O P. RAVI KUMAR, AGED 20 209, PORANKI VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, BEHIND SAIBABA TEMPLE, OPP TO VIGNAN BHARATHI SCHOOL, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 04.09.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.P.NO.8307 OF 2025 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.197 of 2025 of Penamaluru L&O Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused herein for the offence punishable under Sections 329(4), 115(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 30.03.2025 at 16.30 hrs the defacto complainant stated that his daughter by name Lavanya is studying 9th Class in Penamaluru High School. While his daughter sleeping in home, his sister’s son i.e Petitioner/ Accused herein criminally trespassed into home and sexually assaulted on her and torn her long frock, on screaming of his daughter, his wife went into home and tried to stop him, then he beat her with hands. On receipt of information, the defacto complainant rushed to spot and tried to obstruct him, where the Petitioner beat him with stones on him. Hence the above case was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri S. Rajasekhar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant further custodial detention, and 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: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and 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 progress of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. 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: 8. The Petitioner/ sole Accused, as seen from the record, is that he sexually assaulted the victim, who is aged 15 years, 6 months and 4 days as on the date of commission of alleged offence. The Petitioner is none other than the maternal uncle of the victim. The statement of the victim was recorded by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 of ‘the Cr.P.C’ (corresponding to Section 183 of ‘the BNSS’, wherein the victim supported the case of the prosecution. The Petitioner was arrested on 01.04.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 177 days. 9. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that there are two cases pending against the Petitioner, vide Crime No.4 of 2022, for the offence under Section 392 of ‘the IPC’; Crime No.225 of 2023 under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’. It is contended that the Petitioner is a habitual offender. However, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State would submit that the case in Crime No.4 of 2022 registered against the Petitioner was ended in compromise, but the other case under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’ is pending against the Petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner is a Suspect Sheet Holder. Both the learned Legal Aid Counsel and also Assistant Public Prosecutor expressed their fear that if the Petitioner is enlarged on bail at this juncture, he may venture again to physically assault the defacto complainant and victim. There is imminent threat and danger to the life and limb of the victim and urged to dismiss the Petition. CONCLUSION: 10. The allegations leveled against the Petitioner are aggressive in nature. Accusation is well founded as seen from the averments in the Charge Sheet. Hence at this juncture, enlarging the Petitioner on bail is not found convincing and reasonable. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 22.09.2025 KK