Timmasarthi Karthik vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6678 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.6943 OF 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439

of Criminal Procedure Code („Cr.P.C.‟ in short), seeking

regular bail, by the petitioner/ Sole Accused in Crime No.600

of 2022 of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna

District, registered for the offences punishable under Section

376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 („IPC‟ in short) and

Section Sections 6 read with 5 of the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 („POCSO Act‟, in short).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the defacto

complainant reported that while she was studying

intermediate 1st year, she got acquaintance with the accused

and the said acquaintance became love between her and the

petitioner. It is alleged that with deceitful words, the

petitioner took her to his house and sexually exploited her

and as a result, she become pregnant. Hence, the above

crime was registered against the petitioner.

3. Heard Sri Rayana Ramesh, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for

the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to

what has been stated in the grounds, contended that the

allegations in the FIR do not disclose any offence under

Sec.376 of IPC much less 376 (2) n of IPC. The averments

itself shows that it is a consensual affair between the

petitioner and defacto complainant. In support of his

contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the

decision of the Apex Court in Ansaar Mohammad v. The

State of Rajasthan1. It is also contended that the petitioner

is languishing in jail for the last 75 days. It is also further

contended that they were blessed with a baby girl and both

the defacto complainant‟s family and the petitioner‟s family

are entering into compromise and they want to perform

marriage of defacto complainant with the petitioner. Hence,

prays this Court to consider this application.

5. On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor opposed the bail and he relied upon a judgment of

2022 Live Law (SC) 599

Hon‟ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab &

Another2. He further submitted that even though, substantial

investigation is completed, if bail is granted, the petitioner

may not co-operate with the investigation. Hence, prayed for

dismissal of the Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention

of this Court to para No.4 in the judgment of the Hon‟ble

Apex Court in Ansaar Mohammad vs. The State of

Rajasthan & Another3, which reads as follows:

"4. In view of the said fact, the complainant has willingly

been staying with the appellant and had the relationship.

Therefore, now if the relationship is not working out, the

same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence

under Section 376(2)(n) IPC".

7. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor draw the

attention of this Court to para No.57 in Gian Singh vs.

State of Punjab & Another4 which reads as follows:

"57. .......

(2012) 10 SCC 303

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599

(2012) 10 SCC 303

Henious and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serioys impact on society".

8. The judgment referred by learned Special Assistant

Public Prosecutor is not applicable to the present bail

application. As such the same cannot be taken into

consideration.

9. Perusal of the record shows that there is consent

between the de facto complainant and the petitioner and it is

also prima facie evident that when the de facto complainant

felt that the relationship between her and the petitioner is not

going to work out, the present complaint seems to have been

filed.

10. Taking the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the material available on record into

consideration, this Court is of the view that this complaint was

lodged when the relationship between the de facto

complainant and the petitioner is not working out and since

the petitioner is languishing in jail for the last 75 days and

substantial investigation is completed and by taking into

consideration the judgment referred supra by the learned

counsel for the petitioner as it is squarely applicable to the

facts of the present case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to

the petitioner, however by duly taking the apprehensions of

the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor into

consideration, on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing

self bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only)

with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the

learned Special Judge for speedy trial of offences under

protection of children from sexual offences act, Vijayawada;

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House

Officer, Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna

District, once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 10.00

a.m. and 12.00 noon, till filing of the charge sheet; and

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact the

de facto complainant or her family members and witnesses

under any circumstances in this regard and any such attempt

shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses

and shall not tamper the evidence; and

(iv) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper with

the prosecution evidence. He shall make himself available to

the investigating officer whenever required by them to

facilitate proper investigation in this case.

Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with

the above conditions and in case of infraction of the same, the

prosecution is at liberty to move appropriate application for

cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner,

limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating

agency from further investigation as per law and the finding in

this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the

limited purpose of considering bail in the above Criminal

Petition and shall not have any bearing in any other

proceedings.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 12th September, 2022 AG

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6943 OF 2022

Date : 12.09.2022 AG