Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while dismissing a bail application of the petitioner accused of offence rape held that rape cannot be considered as a mere physical assault and cases relating to granting of bail in offences of rape are required to be approached differently, as granting of bail in such cases by adopting a liberal approach would be against the interest of the society.
Brief Facts:
The case involved allegations that the petitioner, a final year law student, developed intimacy towards the complainant, a third-year law student, and promised her love and marriage and on this pretext, the petitioner deceitfully and forcibly had sexual intercourse with the complainant; it was also alleged that he secretly recorded the act. The present petition was filed by the accused seeking bail in an FIR lodged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 70(1) (gang rape), Section 77 (voyeurism), Section 351(2) (criminal intimidation), Section 69 (sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means), and Section 75(1) (sexual harassment) and the provisions of the Information Technology Act.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued the petitioner is innocent of all charges, particularly those related to rape or sexual intercourse and further the police investigation is complete and the charge sheet is filed. Further, it was contended that there has been an inordinate delay in filing the report to the police, and the petitioner should not remain in judicial custody.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State argued that the victim has revealed extremely serious allegations against the Petitioner to the effect that he is the key person who encouraged several persons for having forcible sexual intercourse with the victim and lastly, the delay in lodging the report was on account of the fact that the victim was black mailed by the accused persons that they would make her videos being shared publicly, thereby damaging her reputation.
Observations of the Court:
The Court stated that while the filing of a charge sheet is a significant factor in granting bail, it is not the sole criterion to be considered, and this must be evaluated in conjunction with the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. It was stated that in the present case, although the charge sheet has been filed, the defacto complainant's statements, as recorded, specifically highlight the key role played by the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence and the petitioner has been assigned the role of facilitating the participation of other persons who are accused in the case and these persons are alleged to have coerced the defacto complainant into engaging in physical relations. The court observed that the petitioner's role, according to the charges, involves actively participating in or enabling the actions of the other accused persons, and this suggests that the petitioner could have played a key role in facilitating, encouraging, or possibly even directly pressuring the victim into the alleged situation.
Further the court stated that the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is grave in nature and rape cannot be considered as a mere physical assault. In an occurrence of this type, the resistance from the victim cannot be expected, there is no allegation that the victim was inimical or was acting against the instigation of somebody else and this the cases relating to granting of bail in offences of rape are required to be approached differently, as granting of bail in such cases by adopting a liberal approach would be against the interest of the society.
The court held that it was not necessary now to go into detail about the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the accused, and the period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the petitioner/accused to be enlarged on bail.
The decision of the Court:
The Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Batha Vamsi vs The State Station House Officer
Coram: Hon’ble Sri Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao
Case No.: Criminal Petition No: 1986/2025
Advocate for the Applicant: Duvvada Ramesh
Advocate for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Picture Source :
