CRLP/16176/2014 of Middepalli Subbaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2014

ORDER:

The petitioner, who is the sole accused, filed the presentCriminal Petition under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. seekingenlargement on bail in Crime No.178 of 2014 of GangavaramPolice Station, registered for the offences punishable underSections 376, 417 and 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection ofChildren from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

It is the case of the prosecution that the informant and thepetitioner herein are relatives and since one year the petitionerinduced the informant stating that he is in love with her and wantedto marry her.Believing the words and assurances given by thepetitioner, the informant accompanied him to the sugarcane fieldswhere he enjoyed her sexually.When the informant becamepregnant by three months, the informant asked the petitioner tomarry her, for which he told her not to inform any body about theiraffair and that he will take her to Bangalore and marry her.Later,he refused to marry her.As the petitioner refused to marry theinformant, she informed the same to her parents when they wentand questioned the petitioner and wanted him to marry theinformant, he is alleged to have stated that he is no way connected-to the informant and that he is ready to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/towards penalty.Basing on these allegations the above casecame to be registered.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel-for the respondentState.

At the time when the matter is taken up for hearing the learned Public Prosecutor submits that previously the petitionerfiled the very same application which was dismissed by this Courton 12.2.2014.There being no changed circumstances from thedate of dismissal he seeks dismissal of the petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as themother of the petitioner is unwell and there is no one to look afterher.The said request cannot be accepted at this stage as there isno material in support of the same.The medical certificate whichwas placed on record would show that the mother of the petitionerwas advised for bed rest from 19.12.2014 to 25.12.2014.Therefore, the said certificate cannot be a ground to grant bail tothe petitioner.

As stated earlier the bail application filed by the petitionerwas rejected on 12.12.2014.There are no changed circumstanceswarranting interference of this Court.

[1]In State of Tamilnadu vs. S.A.Rajathe Apex Court heldthat without there being any major change of circumstances,another fresh application should not have been dealt with within ashort span of time unless there were valid grounds giving rise to atenable case for bail. The Court further held the principles ofres judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but therepeated filing of the bail applications without there being anychange of circumstances would lead to bad precedents.

In view of the judgment referred to above, since theallegations in the report do make out prima facie case and asthere are no changed circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bailto the petitioner.

In view of the representation made that a petition filed by thepetitioner conducting DNA test is pending, the trial Court isdirected to take steps in the said petition and pass orders inaccordance with law.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

31.12.2014Note: Issue C.C. in week days.B/ogkv ____________________

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

[1]2005 (8) SCC 380