Allowed

Repaka Prashanth , Sushanth v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Nov 2020CRLP/5381/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition for regular bail. The court noted contradictions between the victim's initial complaint, alteration memo, and the 164 Cr.P.C statement regarding sexual exploitation and money taken, and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to executing a personal bond with two sureties, appearing daily at P.S. Yadagirigutta, and cooperating with the Investigating Officer.

Repaka Prashanth , Sushanth Vs The State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

t³¹⁶⁸ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5381 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Repaka Prashanth @ Sushanth, son of Rapaka Komuraiah.

¶9

Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, through S H.O, P.S Yadagirigutta, Bhuvanagiri District, Rep. Public Prosecutor High Court of^judicature Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶12

RespondenUComplainant

¶13

Petition under Section 437 & 439 of Cr. P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge petitioneriaccused on bail in Crime No. 200 of 2020 of P.S., Yadagirigutta, Bhuvanagiri District on such terms and conditions.

¶14

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M RAM MOHAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR^(TG) for the Respondent, the Court made the following.

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

THE HONC,URABLE SRI JUSTICE K.^LAKSH.MAN

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5381 OF 2O2O

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This is an application for regular bail. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.200 of 2020 of P.S. Yadagirigutta, Bhuvanagiri District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376(2), 384 IPC and Section 5(1) read '"vith Section 6 of POCSO Act,2012.

¶20

Heard llri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner aed learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶21

In thr: telugu written complaint dated 18.08.2020, the victim girl specifically mentioned that the petitioner/ accused has not exploited her physicallv and also sexually. The allegation of the defacto complainant in the complaint datec 18.08.2020 is that petitioner herein had promised her to marry but thereafter, he had refused to keep up his promise, u,here as in the alteration memo filed by the police, it is stated that the petitioner herein by promising the defacto complaint to marry, exploited her sexually Even in the alteration nlemo, dates are not specifically mentioned except mention.ng the month as Uuly, 2O2O'. In the complaint, it is also stated that the accused has taken an amount of Rs.6 iakhs from the defacto complaint whereas in the remald rep()rt, alteration memo and in the statement of

¶22

the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, it is stated that petitioner/ accused has taken an amount of Rs.6 lakhs from the defacto compla-iant and also the amount kept by her father in the Almara. Thus, the versions of the defacto complainant in the complaint dated 18.08.2020, alteration memo dated 1l .O9 .2O2O , the remand report and the also in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C appears to be contradictory. Petitioner was arrested on 72.O9.2020.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that the Police have recorded statements of 1O witnesses inciuding the material witnesses.

¶24

Considering the said aspects, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner herein.

¶25

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶26

(i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) u,ith two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alair.

¶27

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, P.S. Yadagirigutta, Bhuvanagiri District, on every day between 10.00 AM and 5.OO PM, till completion of investigation and filing of charge^sheer

¶28

¶29

I I

¶30

(iii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer.

¶31

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha_ll stand

¶32

disposed of.

¶33

SDr- ,1<.5L't'aO=,-,, ASS I li'r'AN',r' tr ti(; I s1'

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Alair.

¶38

The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Bhuvanagiri.

¶39

The Station House Officer, P.S. Yadagirigutta, Bhuvanagiri District.

¶40

One CC to SRI M RAM MOHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI

¶41

Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG), High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶42

One spare copy

mvJ

HIGH COURT

KL,J

DATED:121111',,1020

ORDER

CRLP.No.5381 of 2020

BAIL

Tt:
Eq <br>(
11NrN,Rt t:
r:::.
O;-::- ,ri.'il -(<br>

Repaka Prashanth , Sushanth v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Repaka Prashanth , Sushanth 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

Dandugala Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Dandugala Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana

Basani Sagar Vs The State of Telangana

Manthri Laxman Vs The State of Telangana and another

Jarripothula Narasimha Rao Vs State of Telangana

Akula Naresh Vs The State of Telangana