Dismissed

Chittari Mallesham v. The state of Telangana and another

Telangana HC10 Dec 2021CRLP/1029/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 439(2) CrPC, the petitioner challenged the bail granted to an accused in a POCSO and IPC offense case. The petition alleged the accused had married the victim and was threatening witnesses. The High Court held that since the victim had married the accused and the investigation was completed, no grounds existed for cancelling bail. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition under Section 439(2) CrPC was dismissed along with any pending miscellaneous applications.

Chittari Mallesham Vs The state of Telangana… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT^HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1029 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Chittari Mallesham, S/o, Ramaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ. TTI Railway Department, Fi/o.H.No. 12-44131A, Sainagar Colony, Biramguda, Ameenpur Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

¶8

...Petitioner / Defacto Gomplainant

¶9

AND

¶10

The state of Telangana, Rep, by its Public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana.

¶11

Chimmani Gajendra, S/o. Ch. Ranga Raju, Aged about 25 years, Occ. Private Job, Fl/o. H.No. 25-8-444, Bapuji Nagar, Khazipet, Warangal.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Petition under Section 439(2) 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 Cancel the bail order of the 2nd respondent which was granted by the learned Spl, Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences cum 1st Additional Session Judge, at Warangal. in Crl.M.P.No. 164 of 20 19 in Crime No. 159 of 2018 (S.C,No.96 of 2019) of P.S. Khazipet, which is presently pending before^'1''Addl District and sessions Judge, Warangal.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N/.V. SWAMY ,Advocate^for the^Petitioner and the^Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri_Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and of the respondent No. not appeared either in person or by Advoate Mr. K.R.SUNIL KUMAR for Respondent No.2.

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HON BLE SMT.^{JUSTICELALITHAKAN:.IEGANTI}

¶17

( zuMINAL PETITION No^{1029of 20211}

¶18

OIIDI'lR:-

¶19

This petit cn is filed^{by petitioner/de} facto^{cornplainantunder} Section 439(2) tf^{Code of the criminal Procedttre,1973 (fbr short} .Cr'P.C.,)seekinicancellationofbail.grantedtorespondentNo.2/acctrsed by the learned^{SJ ecial Judge fbr trial ol casesunder Protectionof children} from Sexual oilt^{ncesAct-cr.rm-l AdditionatSessionsJudge, warangal, on} 14'03.2019,in()rl.M.P'No.l64of20l9inCrirneNo.I59of20l8of Kazipet Police^{Station, for the offences punishable under Sections} 376(2)(0(f)(w)^{r nd 366-4 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 andSections} 3(f Xw)(i) and^{St ction 4 read with Section 5 of the Protection of Children} from Sexual Offences^{Act (for short,'POCSO Act')'}

¶20

Learned A ;sistant^{PublicProsecutorsubmits that in this case entire} investigation is^{:ompleted and charge sheet is also filed' As per the} allegationsofth.:petitioner,respondentNo.2/accusedhasillegallytaken away his daughtt':^{i.e., victimgirl, and handedoverto one Dilip Kumar and} thesaidDilipKrrmarmarriedthevictimgirlwithtl-recooperationofone Kartrnkar.l.lrevctimgirlalsostatetlthatsheisr,tlluntarilyresidingwith the said Dilip^{Kr mar and shemarriecl hirn' As respondent No 2 hasbeen} threatening^{thep etitioner as well as other witnessesto withdrawthecase'} he lodged^{a corrplaint before the ACB' Warangal'for taking necessary} actron.

¶21

¶22

There is no rellresentation on behalf of pctitioner as well as respondent No.2/accused, No countel is flled on behall of respondent No.2.

¶23

In this case, entire investigation is completed and charge is also filed.

¶24

Even as per the case of the de facto complainant, the victim married one Dilip Kumar and she is staying with him. Therefore, the petitioner could not make out any ground to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2.

¶25

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶26

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand dismissed.

SD/.K.ONESIM

//TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR x\ -., SECTION OFFICER

¶31

To,

¶32

Spl. Judeg for Trail of cases under^protection of children^{from Sexual offences} cum 1sr Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

¶33

The Police Station Khazipet Warangal^District.

¶34

3.^'1't Additional District and Sessions Judge,^Warangal.

¶35

One CC to SRl. M VENKATA SWAMY Advocate [OPUC]

¶36

One CC to SRl. K.R.SUNIL KUMAR, Advocate[OPUC]

¶37

One CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Advocate [OUTI

¶38

Two CD Copies.

¶39

One Spare Copy.

HIGH COURT

LK,J

DATED:10112121t21

HF- 51h
,< <br>cr)-) '[ I JA]l 2022 ;-
7...
/,/
'.<br>

¶46

ORDER

¶47

CRLP.No.1029^{tf 2020}

¶48

CRLP^{IS DISM SSED.}

¶49

,J
t I c\ ,1,/

Chittari Mallesham v. The state of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chittari Mallesham v. The state of Telangana and another

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

Modiem Srinivas Rao and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and another

KanishkaBorkar Vs Smt. PiyaliSinha

P.Avinash Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Aditya Enterprises Project Vartak Nagar Vs Smt. Chileveru Prameela Reddy

Miss Aliya Vs The State of Telangana

V. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana