APHC010108812026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1959/2026 Between: 1. PALLESHETTI MAHESH, S/O. NARASIMHARAO, AGED 29 YEARS, TURPU KAPUR/O.D.NO 12-49, NEHRU NAGAR, RAMAVARAPPADU, VIJAYAWADA, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI,THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,PATAMATA POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA. 2. MOTHER OF VICTIM, MOTHER OF VICTIM ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in Spl. S.C. No. 99 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Vijayawada, arising out of Crime No. 329 of 2025 of Patamata Police Station, for the alleged offences under Sections 137(2) and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 2 1. CHENNAPPAGARI SANKARA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1959/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/Accused, seeking regular bail, in Spl. S.C. No. 99 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Vijayawada, arising out of Crime No. 329 of 2025 of Patamata Police Station, for the offences under Sections 137(2) and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the that accused, who is an auto driver from Hanuman Nagar, Ramavarappadu, developed acquaintance with the victim girl, aged 13 years during Vinayaka Chavithi festival, 2024. With his deceitful words, on the pretext of marriage, he used to take her in his auto. On 09.06.2025 at 10-00 am, accused took the victim on his scooter to his aunt's house at Hanuman nagar and committed penetrative sexual assault against her, on the pretext of marriage. Again on 18.06.2025, at 06-00 pm, accused took her out again and that night brought her to Vijayawada Railway station, from there boarded a train to Visakhapatnam and on 19.06.2025, accused took the victim to his uncle's house at Gopalapatnam, Vizag and again he committed penetrative sexual assault against her. On 20.06.2025, they left Vizag and returned to Vijayawada on that night and he dropped the 4 victim near Ramavarappadu and told her to return home. In this connection, initially FIR was registered under the head of girl missing and after tracing the victim girl on 20.06.2025, basing on the report of mother of the victim girl, case was altered to section 137 (2), 64 (1) BNS, section 6 of POCSO Act in Cr. No. 329 of 2025 of Patamata P.S. 3. Heard Sri Chennappagari Sankara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial in the present matter has already commenced and is presently at the stage of examination of the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that PWs 1 and 2 have not supported the case of the prosecution, and that the crucial evidence is in favour of the accused. The petitioner was in judicial custody since 23.06.2025. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioner be released on regular bail. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the trial has already commenced in the matter and is at a crucial stage. It is contended that the remaining witnesses are yet to be examined, and their evidence is material for establishing the case of the prosecution. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that, if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of influencing the remaining witnesses and tampering with the evidence. It is also 5 contended that the mere fact that some witnesses have not supported the prosecution case is not a ground to grant bail. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in X vs. State of Rajasthan and another1, in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024, wherein it is held as follows: “14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed..” 7. Considering the submissions made and in view of the aforesaid legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that at the stage of considering bail, it is not proper to assess the credibility of 1 2024 INSC 909 6 witnesses or appreciate the evidence in detail, as the same falls within the domain of the trial Court. In the present case, though PWs 1 and 2 have not supported the prosecution, the trial is still at a crucial stage and other material witnesses are yet to be examined. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the stage of the trial, and the possibility of the petitioner influencing the remaining witnesses, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 23.03.2026. UPS 7 56 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1959/2026 Dt.23.03.2026 UPS