1 APHC010470862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9333/2025 Between: Sangireddy Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. SATHUPATI PREM 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/sole Accused on bail in Crime No.174 of 2025 of Chilakaluripet Town Police Station, Palnadu District, registered against the Petitioner/sole Accused herein for the offences punishable under Section 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’) and Section 6 2 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The allegation against the petitioner/sole accused is that he committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim, a girl aged about six (6) years. The grandmother of the victim/respondent No.2 gave her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she alleged that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of ‘the POCSO Act’. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has two daughters and has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that no medical examination of the victim girl was conducted, as her grandmother refused to permit such examination. The learned counsel contends that there are disputes between the grandmother of the victim and the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 123 days. 5. After thorough investigation, a charge sheet has been filed. L.Ws.7, 8, and 9 are circumstantial witnesses. L.W.8, an independent witness and neighbour of the petitioner, spoke in her statement against the petitioner. In view of the filing of the charge sheet and the accusations being prima facie 3 well-founded against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. There are no merits in this criminal petition. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed for the present. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed . _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 29.10.2025 S D P 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9333 OF 2025 29.10.2025 S D P