Dismissed

Smt. Dacu Sunitha v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC29 Mar 2022CRLP/2519/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, Accused No.9, seeking anticipatory bail. The court held that the facts revealed her involvement in trafficking a baby girl, rendering the prayer for bail untenable ineligible.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.2519 of 2022 was dismissed; anticipatory bail prayer rejected.

Smt. Dacu Sunitha Vs State of Telangana — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.Petition No.2519 of 2022

¶2

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2519 OF 2022

¶5

O R D E R:

¶6

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking pre-arrest bail

¶7

to the petitioner/Accused No.9 in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.52 of 2022 on the file of Inthezar Gunj

¶8

Police Station, Warangal District registered for the offence punishable under Section 370(4) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.) and Section 81 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “JJ Act”)

¶9

Heard Sri.M.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶10

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

¶11

Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 14.02.2022 the Child Development Project Officer lodged a Telugu written complaint stating that on 10.02.2022 at about 1500 hours, some women finding over a baby girl. The baby girl was taken by one Swaroopa, an Aasha worker and three other women left the premises. The investigation done by the police pursuant to the registration of crime

¶12

Crl.Petition No.2519 of 2022

¶13

¶14

revealed the offences under Section 370 of IPC and Section 81 of JJ

¶15

Act against the accused. The present petitioner is Accused No.9 as per the remand case diary dated 15.02.2022 of Accused Nos.1 to 6. The role of the petitioner as revealed during investigation is stated

¶16

as follows:

¶17

“Rudrarapu Swaroopa revealed that, she got in acquaintance with one transgender Sunitha R/o.Siddipeta through her relative Anitha r/o.SRR, Thota, Kareemabad, Warangal. The transgender Sunitha assured them to offer money, if they supply a baby girl to her. On that, they agreed to do so and contacted her friend Sharadha r/o.Vijayawada. As such, the Sharadha confirmed them that a baby girl is available with her and brought the baby girl to them on 22.01.2022. As the baby girl is ready to supply, they informed the same to the transgender Sunitha r/o.Siddipeta. Subsequently, the transgender Sunitha came to them, paid amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and took the child and headed back to Siddipeta. Later, the transgender Sunitha made a phone call to them and informed that, the baby girl they sold to her has been infected with HIV, thus she asked them to replace the baby girl and handed over the baby to them physically”

¶18

As seen from the above, the petitioner/Accused No.9 indulged

¶19

in trafficking a baby girl and in the said circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory bail cannot be considered.

¶20

Crl.Petition No.2519 of 2022

¶21

¶22

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶23

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand disposed

¶24

of.

¶25

_________________ K.SURENDER,J

¶26

Date :29.03.2022

¶27

Smt. Dacu Sunitha v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dacu Sunitha v. 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

Babu Jalindhar Kale Vs Union of India

Panda Rajarao , Rambabu Vs The State of Telangana

Edward Francis Vs The State of Telangana

Riyaz Ratnani Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Maskani Vinod Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Paylia Krishna Vs The State of Telangana