IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable dr justice VENKATA CRIMINAL APPFAL NO: 974 of ono'i JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Appeal under Section 14-A of S.C. & ST. (POA) ACT 1989 that the High Court may be pleased to against the Impugned Order in CrI.M.P. No.1573/2023 in Crime No.311/2023 of Pendurthi P praying passed S., Dt.14- 12-2023 passed by Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC and ST (POA) Act-Cum XI Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam here by grant Anticipatory Bail by Allowing interest of the justice. and the Criminal Appeal In the Between: Pebbili Ravi Kumar, S/o Pebbili Ram Door Visakhapatnam-530028 Mohan Rao , Occ Business,;^ Prahaladapuram Simhachalam Aged 50 yrs. No. 18-175, -Appellant / Petitioner / Accused AND •f'® S.H.O., of Pendurthv Amal^avaC Public Prosecutor, High Court 2. Munaparthi Santhoshi Sai Kumari Aged 32 Visakhapatnam. P.S. at W/o Jagadeesh Bhanu Chander 18-181, Prahladapuram yrs Door No. Pendurthi -Respondents / Respondents / Complainant lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 1973, praying that in the , circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Order to Suspend the Order passed in CrI - MP No.1573/2023 in Crime No.311/2023 dt.14-12-2023 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases (Under SC & ST (POA) Act Cum XI ADJ Visakhapatnam. by directing the S.H.O., of Pendurthy P.S., Visakhapatnam not to take any Coercive Steps including for Arrest against the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused. as Counsel for the Appellant :SRI. R SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent No 1 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No 2 : SRI. KALEEMULLA S The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010639712023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) ^ TUESDAY. THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO- It? T!- [3396] JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Between: 1.PEBBILI RAVI KUMAR, S/0 PEBBILI BUSINESS , aged 50 YRS DOOR NO PRAHALADAPURAM SIMHACHALAM, Vi’sAKHAPATNAM RAM MOHAN RAO , OCC 18-175, -530028 ...APELLANT AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE SHO np ^‘^'^^HAPATNAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI CHANDErAGlD^3??|q' no JAGADEESH BHANU PENDURTHrvfsAKHApTTNAM°'' ^'^AHLADAPURAM. Counsel for the Appellant: 1.R SIVASAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KALEEMULLAS 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: ...RESPODENT(S): The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Accused seeking to set aside the Order dated 14.12.2023 of 2023 in Crime No.311 of 2023 Special Sessions Judge for trial of Additional District Judge. Visakhapatnam and passed in Crl.M.P.No.1573 on the file of the Court of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-XI to grant anticipatory bail to him. 2 2. Cas6 of the prosecution, in brief, is that, after the demise of the mother of Respondent No.2 in her childhood, she was brought up by her maternal After the demise of her grandparents. grandfather and grandmother. Respondent No.2 was looked after by her maternal aunt and her husband, who is the Appellant herein. After the demise of the maternal grandmother of Respondent No.2, the Appellant with a dishonest intention stated her to house site in her name and obtained an amount of purchase a Rs.13,50,000/- from her and thereby cheated her by showing fake survey number. When she questioned about the same, in the absence of her maternal aunt, the Appellant had committed rape on her several times and also threatened to kill her if she reveals the same to anybody. In the year 2015, they performed the marriage of Respondent No.2 with their relative. Thereafter also, they both created disputes between Respondent No.2 and her husband and brought her back to them and again the Appellant made sexual assault on her, due to which she became pregnant. At the time of delivery, the Appellant signed as father of the child. When Respondent No.2 tried to reveal the same to the others. Appellant and his wife used to abuse her in the name of her caste. As such she lodged a complaint against the Appellant herein which was registered as a case in Crime No.311 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 376 and 420 IRC and Section 3(1) (r) (s) read with 3(2) (va) of SCSI Act. Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swaroop, learned counsel for the 3. Appellant/Accused, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public \ 3 the State/Respondent No.1 and Sri S. Kaleemulla Prosecutor, representing learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused would submit that the and the wife of the Appellant are the sisters and dissolved. They performed mother of Respondent No.2 they performed her marriage and the same was second marriage to her. Learned counsel would further submit that the false and frivolous. Learned said to have been allegations leveled against the Appellant are counsel would further submit that the alleged rape whereas, the present complaint has been committed in the year 2015-16 lodged in the year 2023. it is submitted that no prims facie case is made out against the Appellant, hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellant. counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there are ■ ie attract the offence of rape against the further submit that the birth certificate of the father of the child. There grant anticipatory bail to the Appellant. Hence, Learned 5. specific allegations to prima facie Appellant. Learned counsel would the child shows the name of the Appellant as are no tenable grounds to prayed for dismissal of the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Appellant in the commission of the alleged offence. The investigation is not yet completed. Hence, prayed for dismissal 6. of the petition. 4 > 7. Perusal of. the material on record would disclose that, the anticipatory bail application filed before the trial Court has been dismissed vide Order dated 14.12.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1573 of 2023 material investigation to be completed. As rightly opined by the learned trial Judge, there on the ground that there is 8. are prime facie allegations against the Appeilant for the commission of the alleged offences. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, nature of the offences alleged against the Appellant and pendency of the investigation, this Court is of the view that, it is not desirable to grant anticipatory bail the Appellant, at this stage. The appeal lacks be dismissed. to merit and the same is liable to 9. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER . To, 1. The Special Sessions Judge for Thai of Cases Under SC and ST (POA) Act-Cum XI Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam 2. The Station House Officer., of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam 3. One CC to Sri. R Siva Sai Swarup, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Kaleemulla S Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCS to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 7. Three CD Copies PR vna HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 ORDER CRLA.No.974 of 2023 5 0 8 JAN 2C25 om DISMISSING THE CRLA