Allowed

Peddalingannagari Shekar, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Jul 2019CRLP/3316/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana granted bail to an accused person charged with luring and raping a six-year-old girl under the POCSO Act. Despite medical reports showing no semen detected and allegations of false framing, the Court granted bail subject to conditions preventing tampering with witnesses and intimidation of the complainant.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner/accused was released on bail on execution of a personal bond for Rs. 25,000 with two local sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with witnesses and intimidating the complain

Peddalingannagari Shekar, Vs The State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

[³¹⁵⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I{YDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN :PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3316 OF 2019

¶6

( oRIHE
-

¶7

Between: Peddalingannagari Shekar,, S/o. Balnarsu

¶8

Petitioner/

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana,, through S.H.O., Mirdoddi Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶11

Respondent/ Complainant

¶12

Petition under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in connection with the POCSO SC. No. 03 of 2019 on the file of Honourable 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (Arising out of Crime No. 21 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2018 of Police Station Mirdoddi, Siddipetc district)

¶13

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit-filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of NAVEEN SOUDA Advocate for the Petitioner, THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) and the Court made the following.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

'..'+_^.x,,r"'<-,.

¶16

.THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

¶17

eIIMINAL^{PETITIONNo.3315 of 2O19}

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Crinriral Petition, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal ProcerJure, 1973, is filed by the^{petitioner/accused,} for grant of bail ir POCSO S.C.No.03 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, registered for the offences^punishable under Sections 37(i, 506 of IPC and Sectiln 6 of the Protection of Children front Sexual Offences Act, :20 t2 (for short, 'POCSO Act').

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the^petitio ne 1/666u sed, the learned Additir:nal Public Prosecutor representing the respondentState and^perur;ed the record.

¶21

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.04.2018, at about 22:30 hours, the de-facto complainant Smt. Pedclamallani Uma (mother rf' the victim girl) went to the Police Station and lodged a report that she is having four daughters. On 03.04.2018 at 02:00 PM, she went to the residential school at Rampr.rr Village to attend the birthday function of her second daughter /arshitha and returned hcme at 05:00 PM. On reaching home, her younger daughter (victirn girl), aged about six years, came to her weeping. On enquiry, the victim girl told that at about 02:30 PM, the petitioner/accus;ed lured her that he will give chocolate, took her into his house, closed the doors and bolted from inside, gnawed on her cheek, renroved her drawer and committed rape on her and threatened her that if she discloses about the incident to anybody,

¶22

GSD. J Crl.P.No.33I6 of 2019 2

¶23

he will kill her and further lured her that he will give money. Accordingly, the de-facto complainant requested the^police to take necessary action on the culprit(s).

¶24

The learned counsel for the^{petitioner/accused} would submit that the allegations levelled against the^{petitioner/accused} are false, frivolous and obnoxious. The victim girl's family and the petitioner/accused belong to the same village and there are land disputes and political rivalry between them. In order to wreck vengeance against the petitioner/accused, the de-facto complainant wantonly lodged the subject report against him. In the Final Report of the medical practitioner, it is clearly mentioned that'Semen and Spermatozoa are not detected on item Nos.1 and 2'. This clearly shows that no rape/ whatsoever, has been committed by the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused is in judicial custody since 04.04.2018. Entire investigation is completed, all the material witnesses are examined and chargesheet is filed before the Court concerned. Hence, the question of the petitioner/accused tampering the evidence and material witnesses would not arise. The petitioner/accused is a permanent resident of Lingupally Hamlet of Chepyal village and he is having landed property in his name. Hence, the question of his absconding or fleeing away from justice would not arise and ultimately prayed to allow the application.

¶25

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail petition contending that the victim is a minor girl aged about seven years. The allegations levelled against the petition e r/accused are grave in nature, which are

¶26

|-...

¶27

I?SD, J Crl-P.Nt.3316 of20l9

¶28

¶29

¶30

punishable uncler Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Thougl'r chargesheet is filed in this case, the^{petitioner/accused} may indulge in similar type of offence/s, if he is released on bail and ultimately prayed to dismiss the application.

¶31

In the FS,L Report, it is categorically mentioned thar: "Semen and Spermatozol are not detected on item Nos.1 ancj 2". It is also categorically rn,:ntioned in the Final Opinion of the medical practitioner thErt "the victim, on examination, has scratch injury at introitus. No other external injuries at the time of exanrination." Looking into t'le nature of allegations levelled agerinst the petitioner/accust:d, the gravity of offence and the merits of the case, I am in(liled to grant bail to the^{petitioner/accused} under Section 439 o1' Cr.P,C.

¶32

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner/accusr:d shall be released on bail on the following terms and conditions;

¶33

(i) on the^{petitioner/accused} executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two local sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dubbaka, Siddipet District;

¶34

(ii) that tlre petitioner/accused shall not indulge in any similar type c,f activities, in future;

¶35

(iii) that l:he petitioner/accused shall not tamper with the prose(rr tion witnesses;

¶36

(iv) that the petitioner/accused shall not intimidate: or give threat to the complainant or any of her family members duringr the period of trial;

¶37

GSD, J Crl.P.No.3316 of 2019

¶38

¶39

(v) that the petitioner/accused shall appear before the Court concerned personally on each date of hearing till conclusion of tria l.

¶40

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

//TRUE^coPYl I

sd/T.NAGESH ASSIS^T

FoT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶45

To,

¶46

I . The lst Add1. District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy

¶47

The S.H.O., Mirdoddi Police Station, Siddipet District J . The Superintendent, District Prison at Sangareddy, Sangareddy District 4. One CC to SRI. NAVEEN SOUDA Advocate IOPUC]

¶48

Two CC's to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶49

6, One spare copy r. Avs .r,*,t'iJ l<z.V th-A- 4'Rrs.f J-z'-,Iu bb-lc '1l^{s)*tLFra ' </sup>}

...4-...c*--..--

HIGH COURT

GSDJ

DATED:O3/O7 l2ctl9l

ORDER

CRLP.No.3316 of ZOL)

,S'# t. ill
I ;* +$ rW
<br>

¶58

BAIL

¶59

-<'---.-.--

Peddalingannagari Shekar, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peddalingannagari Shekar, v. The State of Telangana

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.Gai Shobha Rani Vs The Union of India

Smt. Gai Shobha Rani Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Shahabuddin, Vs The State of Telangana.

Goparaju Ravi Kumar,RaviKojjaw Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Pinninti Suresh Babu Vs The State of Telangana

R. Janakiram and Another Vs The State of Telangana and Another