Dismissed

Yerramsetti Anjaneyulu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Oct 2024CRLP/5995/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second anticipatory bail plea in a POCSO and rape case alleging the accused locked a minor victim inside his house. The court held no change in circumstances existed since the earlier dismissal, relying on Supreme Court precedents on successive bail applications, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Yerramsetti Anjaneyulu Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010376132024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3369]

¶5

FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5995/2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

Yerramsetti Anjaneyulu

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶15

1.P V N KIRAN KUMAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶17

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court Made the Following Order:

¶19

This is the 2^nd Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., has been

¶20

filed by the Petitioner/A2, seeking anticipatory bail, in Crime No.74 of 2024 of Jaggaiahpet Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354(c), 354(a), 109, 376 (1), 506, I.P.C., 4, 12, 17 of POCSO ACT, 2012.

¶21

The above crime was registered against the Petitioner herein and others for the offence punishable under Sections 354(c), 354(a), 109, 376 (1), 506, I.P.C., 4, 12, 17 of POCSO ACT, 2012.

¶22

The Prosecution’s case, succinctly outlined, that on 16.02.2024, at about 9.00 am, A1 took the victim girl on his motorcycle to the house of petitioner/A2 herein at Dhanambodu to talk. While trying to take her into the house of petitioner/A2, the victim girl denied and said that she wants to go back to her home, then the petitioner/A2 herein informed the A1 to take her inside the house, then A1 took the victim girl forcibly to the house of petitioner/A2 and committed rape. When the girl tried to escape from the clutches of A1, the petitioner/A2 locked her inside by locking the doors and stood outside. On the complaint made by the mother of the victim girl, the Police arrested A1 and petitioner/A2.

¶23

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶24

The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there have been no changes in circumstances that would warrant the consideration of the present bail application filed by the Petitioner/A2.

¶25

It is the contention of the petitioner/A2 that the investigation is completed taking into consideration of the said fact, petitioner/A2 may be enlarged on bail.

¶26

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State that investigation is not completed and charge sheet is yet to be filed.

¶27

The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 have already been considered in previous bail applications in Crl.P.No.2078 of 2024. Merely because the police could not apprehend the accused, it cannot be taken as a ground in favour of the petitioner. Considering the serious nature of the acquisition made against the petitioner that A1 took the victim

¶28

girl, who is aged about 16 years to the house of A2 where the petitioner/A2 locked the door and stood outside the door.

¶29

Considering the said allegations made against the petitioner/A2 this Court had not considered the previous Anticipatory bail application. As such this Court finds no change of circumstances to consider this application again.

¶30

Regarding the contention that A1 was released on regular bail, this Court may not necessarily view this as a ground to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. Each case is evaluated based on its own merits, and the fact that A1 was released on bail does not automatically entitle the Petitioner/A2

¶31

to anticipatory bail. All the contentions raised by the Petitioner have previously undergone comprehensive scrutiny during the preceding bail application, culminating in its dismissal by this Court. Hence, the same contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner/A2 and the findings of this Court do not need to be reiterated.

¶32

As already noted, this is the second anticipatory bail application. In this

¶33

context, it is pertinent to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State

¶34

of Maharashtra V. Buddhikota Subha Rao¹ , wherein it is held that:

¶35

“7. xxx In the present case the successive bail applications preferred by the respondent were rejected on merits having regard to the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed.

¶36

xxx

¶37

Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact situation. And, when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence.”

¶38

12. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan² , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

¶39

“ 20. Xxx Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application.”

¶40

By following the aforementioned rulings, it is clear that unless there is a

¶41

significant alteration in the factual circumstances or legal principles necessitating a reconsideration of the previous stance, or if the earlier determination has become obsolete, the second anticipatory bail application cannot be considered. In the absence of change of circumstances, this Court

¶42

1 1989 Supp(2) SCC 605

¶43

2 (2005) 2 SCC 42

¶44

is not inclined consider the second anticipatory bail application of the Petitioner.

¶45

Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the observations made in the present case, which are only for adjudicating the present bail application.

¶46