Dismissed

Dodda Rama Krishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Feb 2022CRLP/265/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order deals with a bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court, considering the gravity of the offence involving abortion and sexual offences against a child, refused pre-arrest bail but allowed the petitioner to surrender for subsequent bail hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petition for pre-arrest bail dismissed; liberty to surrender for subsequent bail application.

Dodda Rama Krishna Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.265 of 2022

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/A2 to A7 in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 470 of 2021 of Mogalthur Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 346(2)(f)(n), 313 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short „IPC‟) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”).

¶4

The above crime is registered against the petitioners along with A1 basing on the report lodged on 25.12.2021, wherein it was alleged that A1 committed rape on the victim girl by promising to marry her due to which she conceived and when it came to knowledge of the accused, all the accused gave tablets to her for abortion. Subsequently, A1 reciled from his promise and the petitioners herein refused to perform her marriage with A1.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the crime and as Police were continuously calling the petitioners to Police Station, they approached this Court by filing W.P.No.30317 of 2021 and this Court by order, dated 23.12.2021 directed Police not to summon the petitioners to Police Station till the next date of hearing and in

¶7

¶8

the meanwhile the above crime was registered on 25.12.2021 with false allegations. He submits that material investigation is completed, as such there is no possibility of inducement of witnesses and tampering the evidence if the petitioners are released on bail.

¶9

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition. He submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. He submits the petitioners along with A1 got aborted the pregnancy of the victim girl and they have committed grave offence under Section 313 of IPC and the provisions of POCSO Act, as such they are not entitled for pre-arrest bail.

¶10

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of offence committed by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to surrender before the concerned jurisdictional Court and move an appropriate application seeking bail. On such surrender, the application moved by the petitioners shall be considered on the same day, in accordance with law.

¶11

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶12

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶14

Date :03.02.2022 IKN/RD

¶15

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 265 of 2022

¶18

03.02.2022

¶19

IKN

Dodda Rama Krishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dodda Rama Krishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lagu Srinu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Marriswamy at Talari Marriswamy Vs State of A.P.

Chennuru Sindhura Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Cherukuri Naveen Vs The State SHO

Nitin Tripathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sabavath Bikshalu Nayak Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh