Allowed

Madishetty Manoj v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Mar 2021CRLP/1086/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Telangana heard a criminal petition for bail under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. involving offences under POCSO and IPC 354 against an 11-year-old victim. The court, noting the petitioner has no prior record and is a student, granted bail subject to strict conditions including execution of a bond, maintaining distance from the victim, and cooperating with

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties for like sums, subject to conditions restricting proximity to victim and tampering with witnesses.

Madishetty Manoj Vs The State of Telangana — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

[^31s8 I

¶3

HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} TUESDAY. THE^{SECONDONV OT MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE '}

¶4

:PRESENT: <'' THE HONOURABLE^{JUSTICEG SRI DEVI} CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO: 1086 OF 2021}

¶5

Between:

¶6

Madishetty Manoj,^S/o.M.Ravi

¶7

..,Petitioner/Sole^accused

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Telangana, Rep.by^{its Public Prosecutor HighCourt at Hyderabad'}

¶10

,.RespondenUComplainant

¶11

Petition under Section 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C,^praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may^be pleased to release the petitioner on bail pending investigation, enquiry and trial in Crime No.768/2020 of Bachupally Police Station, Kukatpally Division - Cyberabad.

¶12

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SMT. P. SUJATHA Advocate for the Petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, the Court made the following.

ORDER:

--______-

]IIONOURABLE JUS?ICE G. SRI DEVI CRIM NAL P ITION NO. 108 OF 2021

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

The petitioner/ accused filed the present criminar petition under Sections 43T and 439 of the Code of Criminal procedure seeking to grant bail to him in Crime No.76 g of 2O2O of p.S. Bachupally, Cyberabad, ,a,hich was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354(a) of the Indian penal code and Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act,2OI2.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ accrrsed, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent_ State and perused the record.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioner/ accused is that on 13.12.2020 the complainant gave a complaint stating that rhe petitioner/ accused used to visit their house occasionally ancl as there is no space in the house, the petitioner/ accused used to sleep with the complainant's daughter, who is aged about 1 1 years and used to molest by touching her private parts and oo 05.72.2020, the complainant came to know that since 7^years, the^petitioner/ accused has been misbehaving with his daughter and molesting^her.

¶21

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor^{opposedto grar-rt bail to} the petitioner/ acc used.

¶22

Learned counsel lor the^{petitioner/ accusedsubmits that the} petitioner has trot committed any^{offence as alleged by the} prosecution and he is falsely^{implicated in the aboveca seThe} The petitioner / accused^{hails from arespectable familv} petitioner/^{accused has been in custody since 13 12 2O2O and he has}

¶23

¶24

¶25

no previous criminal antecedents. It is submitted that the petitioner/ accused is a student pursuing B.Tech. Hence, it is prayed to consider the petitioner's application for bail.

¶26

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused.

¶27

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused shall be released on baii on the following terms and conditions:

¶28

(i) That the petitioner/accused sha1l execute a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad;

¶29

(ii) That the petitioner/ accused shall not indulge in similar type of activities in future and if it is found that he is indulged in similar type of activities in future, the liberty granted to him shall automatically stand cancelled and he would be taken into custody forthwith.

¶30

(iii) that the petitioner/accused shall not move within the vicinity of the victim girl;

¶31

(iv) that the petitioner/accused sha1l not tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶32

(") that the petitioner/ accused shall co-operate with the investigating agency.

¶33

("i) that the petitioner/accused shall not misuse the liberty granted to him.

¶34

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

¶35

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

,Q_---

¶37

SD/.T. KRISHNA^KU AR ASSIST NT RE RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶38

¶39

To,

¶40

The ll Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

¶41

The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar

¶42

The S.H:O., Bachupally Police Station, Kukatpally Division - Cycerabad.

¶43

The Superintendent, Charlapally Central Jail.

¶44

One CC to SMl'. P. SUJATHA, Advocate [OPUC].

¶45

Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUfOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

¶46

One spare copy ZEE

HIGH COURT

GSDJ

DATED:02/0312021

ORDER

CRLP.No.1086 of 2021

BAIL

Madishetty Manoj v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madishetty Manoj 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

Anvari Begum Vs The State of Telangana

M. Shekar Goud Vs The State of Telangana

M. Narsimulu Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Srujana Mantena Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Dr.Pawan Malhan and another Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Akari Srisailam Vs The State of Telengana