Dismissed¶45

Vemula Krishna @ Kiran Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Apr 2025CRLP/1953/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Criminal Petition No. 1953/2025; decided 07.04.2025; Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao; regular bail under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS; bail refused; POCSO Section 6; IPC Section 376(3); BNS Section 89; Crime No. 658 of 2024 Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada; minor victim aged 14; maternal uncle as accused; penetrative sexual assault; pregnancy and abortion 26.12.2024; judicial custody since 28.12.2024; earlier bail Crl.M.P. No. 8/2025 dismissed 22.01.2025; prima facie involvement; incarceration not sole ground for bail; cases: Dharmander Singh @ Saheb; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar; Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta; Vinod Bhandari; Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit; State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; regular bail refused. ¶45

Vemula Krishna @ Kiran Kumar Vs State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; regular bail refused.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/A1, maternal uncle of the 14-year-old victim, accused under Section 376(3) IPC, Section 89 BNS and Section 6 POCSO Act in Crime No.658 of 2024, is entitled to regular bail under Sections 480/483 BNSS. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Regular bail refused: considering the cumulative facts, without commenting on the merits of the evidence, and weighing the nature of the offence, the manner of commission and its impact on society, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The period of incarceration by itself does not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail; where prima facie involvement is apparent, contradictions in the charge sheet must be tested at trial, not at the bail stage.

¶43

Key takeaways

There is evidence on record connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences, and nothing was brought to the Court's notice indicating false implication by the victim.ratio¶33
Pre-trial imprisonment cannot be used as a substitute for punishment without trial-court scrutiny of the evidence, but grant of bail in such a case may adversely impact society.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J. (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; decided 07.04.2025) dismissed Criminal Petition No. 1953 of 2025 under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, whereby Vemula Krishna @ Kiran Kumar (A1), maternal uncle of a 14-year-old girl, sought regular bail in Crime No. 658 of 2024 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada City, for offences under Section 376(3) IPC, Section 89 BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Prosecution case: repeated penetrative sexual assault on the minor from February 2024; pregnancy detected; abortion performed on 26.12.2024. Petitioner in judicial custody since 28.12.2024; earlier bail application (Crl.M.P. No. 8 of 2025) dismissed on 22.01.2025 by the Special Judge for Speedy Trial of POCSO Offences, Vijayawada; investigation complete. Held: material on record connects the accused with the offence and prima facie involvement is apparent; the period of incarceration by itself confers no right to bail; contradictions in the charge sheet are matters for trial; considering the nature of the offence, the manner of commission and its impact on society, bail was refused; the Criminal Petition was dismissed and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

[3369]

APHC010091442025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

MONDA Y , THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO T H OUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1953/2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

Vemula Krishna @ Kiran K u mar

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶16

1.M SOLOMON RAJU

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶18

1.PUBLIC PROSECUT O R

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

1) This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of th e Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), has been f iled by the petitioner herein/A1 seek i ng regular bail, in Crime No.658 o f 2024 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Sta t ion, Vijayawada City, registered for t h e offences punishable under Section 3 76(3) of IPC and section 89 of BNS an d Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶21

2) Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the offence took pl a ce prior to 27.12.2024, at Ambedkar Nagar, Near DAV School, Kondapalli , A1 is the maternal uncle by relation t o the victim girl, aged about 14 years. A1 used to works as a Pastor. When e ver, the accused used to come to Ko n dapalli, for attending prayer in the c h urch of victim girl’s maternal uncle, t h e accused

¶22

¶23

used to sleep in the house of victim girl and in Raj Kumar’s house and the daughter of the accused is close friend to the victim girl and the accused used to propose to her and mover closely with her. In the month of January 2024, the victim girl attained her puberty and since then the accused moved very closely with her and in the third week of February 2024, the accused forcibly committed penetrative sexual assault against her without her consent and since then he repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault against her and finally he met physically with the victim girl in the month of August, 2024 and since April 2024 onwards, the victim girl missed her periods and on observing her, her parents took her to Anu Hospital Mylavaram and there the doctor examined her and confirmed that she is pregnant and did abortion on 26.12.2024.

¶24

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28.12.2024 and has been incarcerated since then. The counsel further contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to disputes with the victim's parents. A previous bail application (Crl.M.P. No. 8 of 2025) was filed before the Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Vijayawada, and was dismissed on 22.01.2025. The investigation is complete, including the potency test, except for the filing of the charge sheet. Therefore, the counsel prays for the petitioner’s release on bail.

¶25

4) On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶26

5) I have heard Sri M. Solomon Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent / State. Learned counsel on either side reiterated their submissions, which are on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report.

¶27

6) As seen from the record, the Defacto complainant/Victim is a minor girl of 14 years of age. According to the Prosecution, it is a case of aggravated

¶28

¶29

penetrative sexual assault and sexual exploitation committed on the victim girl, while she was studying 9^th class, the Accused developed an acquaintance with her while he attended the prayer meetings in the church of the victim girl’s maternal uncle.

¶30

7) In Dharmander Singh @ Saheb V. The State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi)¹ , the High Court of Delhi observed some parameters to deal with the bail applications pertaining to the POCSO offences. The court emphasized the significance of the age difference between the victim and the accused, noting that a greater age gap may indicate a higher degree of perversion in the alleged offence.

¶31

8) The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and reasons for grant of bail in cases involving serious offences should be given. [See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V. Rajesh Ranjan² ; Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta V. Central Bureau of Investigation & another³ ; Vinod Bhandari V. State of Madhya Pradesh⁴ ; and Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit V. State of Maharashtra⁵ ]

¶32

9) At the time of assigning reasons in order to grant/refuse bail, there should not be discussion of merits and demerits of the evidence. [See State of Bihar V. Rajballav Prasad @ Rajballav Prasad Yadav @ Rajballabh Yadav⁶ ]

¶33

10) In support of the Prosecution’s case, Prosecution has recorded the statement of material witnesses and the material placed supports the Prosecution’s case. There is evidence on record connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence under Section 376(3) of IPC and Section 89 of BNS and section 6 of the POCSO Act 2012. Nothing has been brought to the notice of

¶34

1 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 1033

¶35

2 (2004) 7 SCC 528

¶36

3 (2012) 4 SCC 134, para 32

¶37

4 (2016) 15 SCC 389, para13

¶38

5 (2018) 11 SCC 458, para 29)

¶39

6 (2017) 2 SCC 178, para 15

¶40

¶41

the Court from the material on record or otherwise, causing the victim to implicate the petitioner falsely in the present case.

¶42

11) Indeed, pre-trial imprisonment cannot be used as a substitute for the punishment without the scrutiny of the evidence by the trial Court, but, at the same time, in a case where a girl was in such a situation, as referred to above, grant of bail to the petitioner, at this stage, may also have an adverse impact on the society.

¶43

12) 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. Where prima facie involvement of the accused is apparent, the contentions raised regarding the contradictions in the charge sheet are required to be tested at the time of trial, but not at this stage. The period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the petitioner/accused to be enlarged on bail. Filing of the charge sheet establishes that after due investigation, the investigation agency, having found materials, has placed the charge sheet for the trial of the petitioner.

¶44

13) Given above, considering the cumulative effect of entire facts and circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the evidence and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other factors, like the nature of the offence, the manner, in which it has been committed and its impact on the society, petitioner is not entitled to bail, at this stage.

¶45

14) As a result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed .

¶46

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶47

_____________________________ JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶48

Date: 07.04.2025 SAK

¶49

¶50

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶51