1 APHC010476732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9400/2025 Between: Pujari Bhaskar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Gandhavalli Mahesh Devan Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. Public Prosecutor 2. Nimmagadda Vijaya Santhi 3. Legal Aid 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.1 on bail in Cr.No.116 of 2025 of Buchireddy Palem Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences 2 punishable under Sections 140(3), 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), 8 read with Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The prosecution case is that the complainant, residing with her grandparents in Bangalore, was forcibly taken along with her sister and grandparents on 13.05.2025 by the accused persons to Mangalikatta, Buchireddypalem, and wrongfully confined in the house of Amavasya Madhu. On the same night at about 11:30 p.m., accused Pujari Bhaskar allegedly misbehaved with the complainant by touching her indecently and demanding sexual favours. The next morning, accused Ambi Chengaiah and Bhagyalakshmi threatened that they would not be released until their son was found. On 15.05.2025, in the early hours, the complainant and her family escaped and lodged a report at Buchireddypalem Police Station. CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri G. Mahesh Devan, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing 3 submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant of bail to the petitioner. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing process of trial and evading the procedure of law. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. On the other hand, Smt. N. Vijaya Shanthi, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2, reiterates the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. It is urged that the petition be dismissed stating that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail he would cause danger to the life and limb of the victim. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by 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 learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 4 8. As seen from the record, the accusation against the petitioner is that he not only wrongfully confined a minor girl aged about 13 years but also molested her. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/victim apprehends that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, he would pose a definite danger to the life and safety of the victim. The charge sheet has already been filed, and on perusal, it is clear that the accusation is well-founded. Hence, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to enlarge him on bail at this juncture is not found convincing and reasonable. Therefore, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 26.09.2025 KMS 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9400 of 2025 Date:26.09.2025 KMS