IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7079 OF 2023 Between; Jogilatha Arika, D/o Manmadarao, aged 31 years, Occ: Physical Director, R/o Gumma Village, Kurupam Manda, Parvathipuram Manyam District. (Vizianaragaram) ...PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND 1. Konisa Abhishek, S/o Tirupathi Rao, Aged 24 years R/o Gumma Village, Kurupam Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District (Vizianagaram). ...RESPONDENT N0.1/S0LE ACCUSED 2. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to cancel the bail granted to the respondent No.1 / Sole Accused 1 by an Order dt. 28.07.2023 in CrI.MP No.495 of 2023 in Crime No.88 of 2023 of Kurupam Police Station, Parvathipuram Manyam District, on the file of the court of Learned Spl. Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) Act, Vizianagaram, in the interests of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri DASARI S. V. V. S. V. PRASAD, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri G. Ramakrishna, Counsel for the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: 1 APHC010468472023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7079/2023 Between: Xxxxxxx ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Konisa Abhishek and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DASARI S VV S V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. GRAMA KRISHNA The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 439(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking to cancel the bail granted to the respondent No. 1/accused vide an order dated 28.09.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.495 of 2023 in Crime No.88 of 2023 of Kurupam Police-Station, Paravathipuram, Manyam District, on the file of the learned Special Judge for 2 Speedy Trial of Offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’), Vizianagaram. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.07.2023, a report is submitted by the petitioner, who is working as a physical director, alleging that from the year 2021, the respondent No.1 followed her and proposed her. On 07.06.2021, the respondent No.1 under the guise of talking to her privately and took the petitioner to a lodge at Madurawada, Visakhapatnam. Without her consent, he has sexual intercourse with the petitioner. Again, on 24.08.2021, the respondent No.1 took her to some lodge at Madurawada, Visakhapatnam, and repeated, similar actions without her consent. As a result, the petitioner conceived, and the respondent No.1 forced her to abort. Again, on one occasion, the respondent No.1 took the petitioner to Rayagada Lodge and gave her abortion tablets; as a result, the petitioner got aborted. For the purpose of construction of the house, the petitioner applied loan and got an amount of Rs. 11,50,000/-, out of which she gave Rs.11,00,000/- to the respondent No.1 and further she gave Rs.6,00,000/- to the respondent No.1 on another occasion. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 was reluctant to marry her and abused her by touching the caste. As the matter was not settled before the elders, she lodged a report with the police. 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 2. 3. 3 «%> Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued 4. that respondent No.1 was granted bail by the learned Special Judge without providing an opportunity to the petitioner, as mandated under Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘SC & ST Act’). Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge is vitiated by the necessary mandate and principles of natural justice, and he urged to set aside the order of the learned Special Judge directing respondent No.1 to surrender before the learned Special Judge by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan & Anr\ 5. Per contra, Sri G. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.1, argued that there was a consensual relationship/live-in relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1. The sections of law mentioned in the FIR would not attract to the allegations leveled against respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 relied on the decision of the High Court of Delhi in X v. State of NCT of Delhi & Another^, wherein the High Court of Delhi, directed the learned Court which granted bail to restore to the file the application for bail filed by respondent No.2 therein, and further directed the learned Special Judge to afford an opportunity of hearing to the defacto complainant/alleged victim, with a direction that respondent No.2 therein shall not be taken into custody for a period of 15 days ^ 2021 see Online sc 1010 ^ 2024 sec Online Del 1027 from the date of passing of the order, subject, of course, to the orders passed by the learned Special Judge on the application of the accused therein. A Clarification was also given that the Court had not merits of the order. In another decision relied expressed any opinion on the on by learned counsel for respondent No.1, in T. Babu v. Byju Sebastian in CrI.M.A.No. 4 of 2022 in Bail Application No. 330 of 2022, dated 23.01.2023, while setting aside the passed without providing an opportunity of being heard as mandated under Section 15A(3) of ‘the SC & ST Act. order the Court restored the bail application to the file and posted the bail application for hearing, by the learned Special Judge. > » 6. Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the learned Special Judge, while granting bail to respohdent No.1, had not provided any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as per the mandatory requirement, and urged that the order is unsustainable for want of compliance with the principles of natural justice, and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. She requested that appropriate orders be passed, keeping in view the judgments laid down by the High Court of Delhi in Xsupra and T. Babu supra. Without going into merits of the matter, it is an admitted fact that the also submitted 7. learned Special Judge had not provided an opportunity to the petitioner to submit her views or objections with regard to enlarging the petitioner on bail in the instant case. Indeed, for better appreciation of the case Section 15A (3) of ‘the SC & ST Act.,’reads as under: (3) A victim or his dependent shall have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any Court proceeding including any bail proceeding and 5 f»cv the Special Public Prosecutor or the State Government shall Inform the victim about any proceedings under this Act. ” 8. A fair reading of the above principles of the provision of law makes it crystal clear that before enlarging the accused/respondent No.1 on bail; it is incumbent on the special Court to hear the defacto complainant/alleged victim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, also in Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan supra at para Nos.6 and 22, held as under: “6. The appellant moved the High Court under Section 439(2) of CrPC for cancellation of bail. 7 In the meantime, another Single Judge of the High ' Court, by an order dated 29 January 2021 rejected the application for ball filed by three co-accused - Kalu Ram, Kishan Lai and Chaman Lai. The application for Cancellation of bail before the High Court was moved principally on the ground that no notice was issued to the appellant under sub-section (3) of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act, resultingly no opportunity to be heard was provided under sub-section (5) of Section 15A. The Single Judge who had admitted the first respondent to bail on 7 November 2019 rejected the application on the ground that since the appellant was being heard in the application for cancelling bail, the requirements of sub sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A were complied with. The High Court observed: “So far as compliance of Section 15A (3)(5) of SC/ST Is concerned, this Court today heard counsel for the complainant-petitioner again on merits, therefore, requirement of issuing notice to the complainant-petitioner (victim) as provided under Section 15A (3)(5) of the SC/ST Act is being complied with. The order dated 07.11.2019 was passed by this Court after considering the statement of PW-2, Smt Aaram Devi, wife of the deceased, therefore, I see no reason for recalling of the order dated 07.11.2019. As such, this criminal miscellaneous bail cancellation application is hereby dismissed. ” , 22. Quite apart from the infraction of the provisions of the SC/ST Act, there has been no application of mind by the Single Judge of the High Court to the considerations that govern the grant of bail. This Court recently in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhal Hirabhai MakwanalS, of which one of us, was a part (Justice DY Chandrachud), has elaborated on the considerations that govern the grant of bail. This Court also emphasized that recording of reasons by a judge is not a task in formality, but an exercise of judicial accountability and transparency, which makes the decision available for further scrutiny at the touchstone of reason and justice. This Court observed: “39. Grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC is a matter involving the exercise ofjudicial discretion. Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail—as in the 6 case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution— is not unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice.... 40. We are also constrained to record our disapproval of the manner in which the application for bail of Vishan (A-6) was disposed of The High Court sought to support its decision to grant bail by stating that it had perused the material on record and was granting bail “without discussing the evidence in detail” taking into consideration: (1) the facts of the case; (2) the nature of allegations; (3) gravity of offences; and (4) role attributed to the accused. ” The High Court of Kerala in Babu T. v. Byju Sebastian, while relying on 9. several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, did not sustain the order passed by the learned Special Judge in enlarging the petitioner on bail without compliance of Section 15A(3) of ‘the SC & ST Act’. Similarly, the High Court of Delhi in X supra, also took the same view. 10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hariram Bhambhi supra, the order passed by the learned Special Judge is unsustainable for want of compliance of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order is liable to be interfered and set-aside. 11. However, a direction is required to be given to the learned Special Court to restore the bail application in Crl.M.P.No.495 of 2023 in Crime No.88 of 2023 of Kurupam Police Station, Parvathipuram, Manyam District on file, to hear the I matter afresh by providing an opportunity to the petitioner/alleged victim in compliance with the provisions of Section 15A (3) of ‘the SC & ST Act’. 7 12. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.495 of 2023 in Crime No.88 of 2023 of Kurupam Police Station, Parvathipuram, Manyam District, passed by the learned Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under (‘the POCSO Act’), Vizianagaram, while restoring the bail application on file. The learned Special Court is directed to hear the bail application afresh by providing an opportunity to the petitioner/alleged victim and dispose of the bail application within 15 days from the date receipt of the order. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge. No order as to 13. costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VENUGOPAL RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR A V': . . SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, (POCSO Act) 2012 at Vizianagaram. 2. One CC to SRI. DASARI S. V. V. S. V. PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. G RAMA KRISHNA Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of A.P. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies Pmg Cnr ^ . HIGH COURT DATED:06/05/2025 i 2 5JUN 2025 ^^•uirrentSectt ORDER CRLP.No.7079 of 2023 ★ ALLOWING THE CRLP