Telangana High Court
CRLP/15943/2014 of Tirumani Bala Krishna , Balaji, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.15943 of 2014 ORDER : The petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.159 of 2014 of Kalla Police Station, West Godavari District, filed the present application under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. seeking enlargement on bail in the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Arguments
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15943 of 2014
ORDER :
The petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.159 of 2014 ofKalla Police Station, West Godavari District, filed the present applicationunder Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. seeking enlargement on bail in theabove crime, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A)and 376(i) I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 8 of Prevention of Children from SexualOffences Act, 2012.
The case of the prosecution is that on 08-11-2014 at about 10 a.m. theinformant, who is father of the victim girl, lodged a report stating that hisdaughter, who is aged about 15 years, left home along with the petitioner. Though they tried to trace her, but their efforts went in vain. Basing on thesaid report, the above case came to be registered. On 18-11-2014, the victimgirl was produced by her father before the Station House Officer, Kalla PoliceStation, who after examining the girl, altered the sections of law.
The investigation done so far discloses that the victim girl, who is agedabout 15 years, used to go for coolie work. About four months prior to thedate of incident, the victim girl was sent to Gondi village where the accusedwas working as mason. Both of them developed acquaintance with eachother and thought of a marriage. After completion of the work, both of themwent back to their respective villages. On 04-11-2014, while the victim girlwas alone in her house, the accused came there, enjoyed her sexually andinduced her stating that he would marry her. Believing the said version, thevictim proceeded along with the accused to Vijayawada where both of themstayed in a room as wife and husband. As she was weeping, the accusedtook her to Bhimavaram, left her there and then absconded from the saidplace.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learnedPublic Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that at time of thealleged incident, the victim girl was above 15 years and as she wanted tomarry the accused and as such, she left the house on her own will.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending thatsince the age of the victim girl is about 15 years, even accepting thecontention that the victim girl was a consenting party, still it would be anoffence under Section 376 I.P.C.
A perusal of the material placed before the Court would show that thevictim was a minor as on the date of commission of the offence. Theaverments in the report and the statement of victim disclose that the petitionermade her believe that he is a bachelor and with a promise to marry hercohabitated with her. Even assuming for the sake of argument that she was aconsenting party, still ingredients constituting an offence of rape are made outas the victim was 15 years on the date of incident. Though the petitioner is injail from November, 2014, but as the offence alleged is grave and serious innature punishable with death or imprisonment for life and as the investigationis still pending, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
20.01.2015gkv`
____________________
C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.