Dismissed¶57

Boddu Jagadish v. the State Station House Officer

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Apr 2025CRLP/1697/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; CRLP No.1697 of 2025; Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao; regular bail under Sections 480/483 BNSS by Accused No.2 Boddu Jagadish; Crime No.287 of 2024, Women/Mahila Police Station, Visakhapatnam; gang rape and video-blackmail allegations; Sections 70(1), 77, 351(2), 69, 75(1) BNS 2023 and Section 67-A IT Act 2000; charge sheet filed yet bail declined on gravity of offence and attributed role; Masroor v. State of U.P. relied on; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

While the filing of a charge sheet is a significant factor in granting bail, it is not the sole criterion to be considered; it must be evaluated in conjunction with the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. ¶48

Boddu Jagadish Vs the State Station House Officer — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/Accused No.2 is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail under Sections 480 and 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.287 of 2024 of Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, the charge sheet having been filed.

¶12

Court's answer

¶48

Ratio / Principle

Although the charge sheet has been filed, the defacto complainant's recorded statements specifically highlight the role played by the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence; he was assigned the role of blackmailing the victim along with the other accused and having forcible sexual intercourse with her.

¶48

Key takeaways

There is no denial that the petitioner/A.2 was known to the other accused persons named in the F.I.R. and the charge sheet; no reason or explanation was offered for his involvement with the co-accused, and whether he was involved is very much a matter of trial.ratio¶49
On the prosecution case, A.2 secretly recorded the sexual act between A.1 and the victim and, along with A.3 and A.4, used the video to blackmail the defacto complainant; under fear of these threats she was forced to have sex with A.2 to A.4 against her will and consent, constituting gang rape.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused. Criminal Petition under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS by Accused No.2 seeking regular bail in Crime No.287 of 2024 (Mahila/Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam) for offences under Sections 70(1), 77, 351(2), 69 and 75(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Held: (i) filing of a charge sheet is a significant factor but not the sole criterion for bail, to be weighed with the facts and circumstances of the case; (ii) the defacto complainant's recorded statements specifically attribute to the petitioner a role of blackmailing the victim along with the other accused and forcible sexual intercourse; on the prosecution case A.2 secretly recorded the sexual act and, with A.3 and A.4, used the video to blackmail the victim into sexual acts, constituting gang rape; (iii) rape and gang rape carry rigorous imprisonment of ten and twenty years respectively, extendable to life; bail in rape cases cannot be granted by a liberal approach, which would be against the interest of society; (iv) the period of incarceration by itself does not entitle release. Petition dismissed; observations expressly preliminary and without indication on the merits. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's observation in Masroor v. State of U.P. that reasons for a prima facie conclusion must be indicated in bail orders in serious offences.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1697 OF 2025

¶6

Between

¶7

Boddu Jagadish. S/o. Jampayya, 27 years, R/o. D.No.20-36-20, Jalaripeta Near Sulab Complex, Naval canteen, Visakhapatnam.

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused No.2.

¶9

AND

¶10

The State Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam District Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati.

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS Act 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Police to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.287 of 2024 of Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam District.

¶13

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Appa Rao Kothuru, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶14

The Court made the following;

¶15

¶16

APHC010071822025

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶18

AT AMARAVATI

¶19

[3369]

¶20

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶21

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1697/2025

¶25

Between:

¶26

Boddu Jagadish

¶27

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶28

AND

¶29

The State Station House Officer ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶31

1.APPA RAO KOTHURU

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶33

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶34

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶35

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner/A2, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.287 of 2024 of Mahila Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 70(1), 77, 351(2), 69 and 75(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and Section 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘I.T.Act’).

¶36

•oCase of the prosecution, in brief is that on 18.11.2024 at about 22.30 hours, the defacto complainant alleged that A1 developed intimacy with her by promising love and marriage. On 10.08.2024 at Kambalakonda park, A1 forcefully had sexual intercourse with her, deceitfully reiterating his promise of

¶37

¶38

¶39

marriage. On 13.08.2024 at Krishna Gardens, Dabagardens, A1 took her to the rented room of his friend/A4. A1 again forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her. Later, friends of A1 i.e, A2 to A4 came there and showed her private videos captured earlier and threatened to share them publicly if she resisted. Under the duress, all four accused sexually exploited her. From that time, the accused continuously harassed and tortured her for sexual favours. Unable to bear the harassment, she attempted to commit suicide. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2 contends that all the allegations are directed solely at A1, and, apart from ATs confession statement, there is no other incriminating material linking the petitioner to the commission of the offence; the petitioner denies any involvement in blackmailing the victim at any point. Furthermore, the police investigation has been completed, and the charge sheet has been filed. Given that there is no possibility of tampering with the prosecution's evidence, and considering the petitioner has a fixed place of residence and has willing to cooperate with the police, the counsel requests the granting of bail.

¶40

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the State, opposes the petitioner’s bail application. He highlights that the victim has made grave allegations, including that the petitioner/A.2 blackmailed her and engaged in forcible sexual intercourse with her. Additionally, the delay in reporting the incident was due to the victim being threatened by the accused. who allegedly threatened to publicly share compromising videos, damaging her reputation.

¶41

I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions, which are on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report,

¶42

fh MasroorV. State of U.P.\ a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows;

(2009) 14 see 286

... Though at the stage of granting bail, an elaborate^{examinationof} evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided, but there^isaneedto indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence.

¶48

Before adverting to the merits of the case, this Court would like to clarify that while the filing of a charge sheet is a significant factor in granting bail, it is not the sole criterion to be considered. This must be evaluated in conjunction with the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. In the present matter, although the charge sheet has been filed, the defacto complainant’s statements, as recorded, specifically highlight the role played by the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. The petitioner has been assigned the role of blackmailing the victim along with other^{accusedandhadforcible} sexual intercourse with her. Specifically, the petitioner^and other accused persons are alleged to have coerced the defacto complainant into engaging in physical relations.

¶49

The involvement of the petitioner/A.2, given the present circumstances, raises significant concerns. Notably, there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner/A.2 was known to the other accused persons named in the F.I.R., and the charge sheet and in any event, the same is very much matter of trial. At this stage, there is no possible reason or explanation given by the petitioner/A.2 for his involvement with the other co-accused^{inthecommission} of the alleged offence.

¶50

The prosecution’s case is that on 10.08.2024, A.1 took^thedefacto complainant to Kambalakonda park, where he forcibly^{hadsexualintercourse} with.her under the pretext of marriage; subsequently, on 13.08.2024, A.1 took the rented room of A.4 at Krishna gardens, and again forcibly participated in sexual intercourse; during the incident of sex of victim and A.1, A.2 had secretly recorded the sexual act; later, A.2 along^{withA.3andA.4usedthe} video to blackmail the defacto complainant and repeatedly called her through

¶51

voice and whatsapp, threatening to post it on social media unless she consents with their sexual demands; under the fear of threats by A.2 to A.4, victim was forced to have sex with A.2 to A.4 against her will and consent and thereby, they committed the Gang Rape; on 18,11.2024, the victim attempted to commit suicide at 4.00 hours and the victim's father intervened and rescued her; upon learning of her ordeal, the victim's father accompanied the victim to the II Town Police Station, where victim lodged a report.

¶52

As seen from the record, during the arrest, cell phones were seized from the accused. The investigation officer received the Call Detail Records (CDRs) for the mobile numbers of victim, A.1 to A.4 and the tower locations of the complainant and the accused were traced at the scene of offence and the medical report shows that there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse, but possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out. It is important to note that the complainant/victim and A.1 to A.3 are the students of law college and the victim is presently in her third year of study and A.1 to A.3 are in final year of the LLB course and A.4 is the A.I’s friend; A.1 coerced the complainant into engaging in sexual acts with A.2 to A.4; following the incident, the accused persons continued to harass the complainant, repeatedly calling her and demanding sex, threatening to share the compromising video; further A.1 also pressured her to participate in sexual acts with his friends; fearing the public exposure of the video, the victim remained silent in a state of despair, attempted to take her own life by hanging herself in a bed room.

¶53

The offence of rape is punishable by rigorous imprisonment for at least ten years, extendable to life imprisonment with a fine. Gang rape carries twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment with a fine. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is grave in nature! In fact, rape cannot be considered as a mere physical assault. In an occurrence of this type, the resistance from the victim cannot be expected. there is no allegation that the victim was inimical or was acting against the instigation of somebody else. Therefore, the cases relating to granting of bail

¶54

¶55

in offences of rape are required to be approached differently, as granting of bail in such cases by adopting a liberal approach would be against the interest of the society.

¶56

It is not necessary now to go into detail about the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the accused as this is a subject matter to be dealt with by the trial judge. The period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the petitioner/accused to be enlarged^onbail. 13. In view of above, considering cumulative effect of^entire facts and circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of^theevidence and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and other factors, like grievance of the offences including the severity of the punishment, manner in which it has been committed and its impact on the society, petitioner/A.2 is not entitled for bail, at this stage.

¶57

For all the foregoing reasons, 1 do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

¶58

It is explicitly clarified that the observations made in this Order are preliminary and pertain solely to the decision on the present application without indicating a stance on the case's merits.

¶59

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶60

Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶61

//TRUE COPY//

¶62

To,

¶63