Dismissed

Ankem Ankineedu Prasad at Ankineedu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Jun 2022CRLP/3966/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC. The petitioner was charged under IPC, SC/ST (POA) Act, and POCSO Act. The court rejected bail citing the gravity of the offence involving rape on a minor girl for seven years and pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioner is denied; Criminal Petition dismissed.

Ankem Ankineedu Prasad at Ankineedu Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3966 OF 2022

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This Criminal Petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶4

The petitioner is A-1 in Crime No.147 of 2022 of Challapalli Police Station, Krishna District.

¶5

A case under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C’) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SCs&STs (POA) Act’) was registered against the petitioner along with other accused in the above crime. Subsequently, Section 5(I)(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) was added on 27.05.2022 against the petitioner.

¶6

Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner promised to marry the de facto complainant and thereby induced her to have sexual intercourse with him and accordingly, had sexual intercourse with her and thereafter resiled from his promise and refused to marry her and thereby cheated her and committed rape on her. It is stated that during the course of investigation, the de facto complainant who is the victim girl stated in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C

¶7

¶8

that the petitioner has been committing rape on her for the last seven years.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is not stated in the FIR that the petitioner has been committing rape on the victim girl for the last seven years and as such, the POCSO Act has no application to the present facts of the case. He would submit that the allegation that the petitioner has been committing rape on the victim girl is absolutely false. He would also submit that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 54 days and thereby prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶11

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition. He would submit that even though it is not mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner has been committing rape on the victim girl for the last seven years, but the said fact came to light during the course of investigation when the statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C when she stated that the petitioner has been committing rape on her for the last seven years. So, on the basis of the said statement, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the victim girl was aged about 16 years about seven years back and as such, she was a minor at that time and therefore, Section 5(I)(n) of the POCSO Act was added. So, he would submit that as the investigation in this case is pending and in view of the

¶12

¶13

gravity of the offence in which the petitioner is involved, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage.

¶14

Considering the facts of the case as this is a case of committing rape on a minor girl for the last seven years and as the investigation in this case is pending, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶15

Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶16

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶17

Date : 16.06.2022 KA

Ankem Ankineedu Prasad at Ankineedu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankem Ankineedu Prasad at Ankineedu 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

Smt. Palakurthi Sri Naga Sushma C Kotichukkala Sushma, Vs the State of Ap

N.Srinivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Srinivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Manibalan Manikannan Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pan Singh at Man singh Vs The State SHO of Kovvur Rural Ps

Viswantham Subbaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh