Allowed

Nomula Anil Goud v. The State of Telanagana

Telangana HC9 Mar 2021CRLP/342/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a criminal petition for bail under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner, accused of offenses under IPC and POCSO, claimed the victim voluntarily joined him. The court, noting the victim's 161 statement regarding voluntary departure, granted bail subject to a personal bond and appearance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on executing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties, appearing before the investigating officer every Saturday, and cooperating with the investigation.

Nomula Anil Goud Vs The State of Telanagana — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

[³¹⁵⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 342 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nomula Anil Goud, S/o Mallesh,

¶9

Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telanagana, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶12

RespondenUComplainant

¶13

Petition under Sections 437 & 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 enlarge the Petltioners/Accused in Crime no. 731 of 2020 of PS Chaitanyapuri on bail on such condition or conditions as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice.

¶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 AMARNATH Advocate for the Petitioner and ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, the Court made the following.

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

t I

¶17

THII HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI^DEVI ( IRIMINAL PETITION No.342 of 2021

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This Crirninal Petition, under Sections 437 and⁴³⁹ of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to^grant bail in Crime No.73 1 of 20?-0 of P.S.Chaithanyapuri, registered for the offences punishabie under Sections 376(2)(n) and 366 ofIPC and Section 5(1) riw.6 of POCSO Act.

¶20

petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State and perused the record

¶21

It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner and the victirn girl are related to each other and are known to each other since childhood. Gradually, they developed love with each other, wf ich was not in favour of the parents of the 'rictim girl, as they wanted to perform the marriage of victim girl with another boy, who is having landed properties. The victim girl did not wish to marry the other boy as she is in love with the present petitioner, who is her close relative. Accordingly, the victim girl voluntarily left the house on 24.11.2020 to join the association of the petitioner. The petitioner and the victim girl got married and both of them stayed together as husband and wife for a month. After one month, the present case has been foisted against the petitioner on all false and obnoxious allegations. It is submitted that the petitioner has not enticed, kidnapped or abducted the victim girl and rather she has

--_-.---rlr'

\ \ \

voluntarily^joined the society of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 25.12.2020. Leamed counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed in the event of his enlargement on bai[.

¶27

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, though vehemently opposed granting of bail to the petitioner, has lairly conceded that in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement, the victim girl has categorically stated that she has voluntarily gone with the petitioner and married him.

¶28

Looking into the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and having regard to the other facts and circumstances of the case, without delving into the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶29

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused is granted bail subject to the following terms and conditions:

¶30

(l) The petitioner/accused shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with two sureties each to the like sum to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶31

(2) The petitioner shall personally appear before the investigating officer on each Saturday between 10 a.m. and 2 p.rn. till the completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet. Thereafter, the petitioner shall personally appear before the Court concemed on each date of hearing.

¶32

(3) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer in

¶33

investigating the case.

¶34

1..--.--

¶35

irmre "oPvt'

¶36

sDl - lcAl"l MA]1
I Assrsr ANT RE i
t I
FFI CER
SEGTION

¶37

I I jI I I

¶38

To,

¶39

The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar. 2. The Vl Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate cum Vl Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rachakonda L.B.Nagar.

¶40

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District

¶41

The Station llouse Ofiicer, Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rachakonda, Rangareddy District.

¶42

One CC to SRl. M AMARNATH Advocate [OPUC]

¶43

Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , High Court for the State of Telangana, l-ryderabad (OUT)

¶44

One spare copy

HIGH COURT

GSDJ

DATED: 09.03.2O21

ST4 }
(. IAL Cr1<
<br>ORDER
<br>{ ) o s I{ARM
v
CRLP. NO: 342 ol 2O2L

¶49

CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED

Nomula Anil Goud v. The State of Telanagana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nomula Anil Goud v. The State of Telanagana

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

Nalaparaju Rajesh Vs The State of Telangana

Gudur Sandeep Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goel Vs The Assistant Commissioner (in-Situ) of Central Tax

Mohammed Sami, Hyd and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Rakeesh Cheela Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Murali Nath Naidu Madho Vs State of Telangana