T Tharun vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 March, 2026

    0
    38
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

    T Tharun vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 March, 2026

    APHC010156672026
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                     AT AMARAVATI                    [3396]
                              (Special Original Jurisdiction)
    
                   TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH
                       TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
    
                                   PRESENT
    
      THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
    
                       CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2398/2026
    
    Between:
    
      1. T THARUN, S/O T. MOGILAIAH, AGED ABOUT 23 YRS, R/O KOTHA
         VENKATAPURAM VILLAGE, THAMBUGANIPALLI PANCHAYATH,
         BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
    
                                                  ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
    
                                     AND
    
      1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
         PROSECUTOR,  HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,  AT
         AMARAVATI.
    
      2. MOTHER OF VICTIM, G
    
                                          ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
    
         Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
    praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
    Criminal Petition, the High Court
    
    Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
    
      1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY
    
    Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
    
      1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                                           2
    
    
         THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
    
                        CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2398/2026
    
    ORDER:

    This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has

    been filed by the Petitioner herein/Accused, seeking regular bail, in Crime

    SPONSORED

    No.13 of 2026 of Bangarupalem Urban Police Station, registered for the

    offences punishable under Sections 96, 64(1), 127(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya

    Nyaya Sanhitha (for short “BNS”) and Section 4 r/w 3 (a) of POCSO Act.

    2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that since one year prior to

    19.01.2026, the accused lured the victim girl who is aged about 17 years with

    deceitful words that he is loving her. In December, 2025, when no one present

    at victim’s home, the accused came to her house and on the pretext of

    marriage forcibly committed rape against her. Further on 18.01.2026 evening,

    the accused forcibly took the victim minor girl to Kanipakam temple where

    they stayed temple choultry from night of 18.01.2026 till the morning of

    20.01.2026. During the said period, when the victim expressed her desire to

    return home, accused threatened her with dire consequences. On 20.01.2026,

    taking advantage of the accused’s absence, victim escaped and returned to

    her home.

    3. Heard Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the

    petitioner/accused and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public

    Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State. Learned Assistant Public
    3

    Prosecutor would submit that the notice to the defacto complainant is served

    through police and got instructions to submit arguments in this matter.

    4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially, on the

    complaint made by the mother of the victim, a girl missing case was registered

    and on the very next day, the mother of the victim produced the victim girl

    before the police and later the section of law is altered to Sections 96, 64(1),

    127(2), 351(2) of the BNS and Section 4 r/w 3 (a) of POCSO Act. Learned

    counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is a 23 year

    old boy and the victim girl is aged about 17 years. As per the remand report,

    the age of the victim is shown as 16 ½ years as per the Aadhaar Card. He

    would further submit that investigation is completed and charge sheet is also

    filed in this matter. It is a case of elopement backed by love affair between the

    petitioner/accused and the victim girl. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

    further submit that the complaint averments would show that the girl has

    studied upto Intermediate and residing in the house. She may be a major also.

    Learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays to allow the petition by

    imposing any conditions.

    5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation

    is completed in this matter. Charge sheet is also filed. There are no criminal

    antecedents against the petitioner. She finally submits that the Court may

    pass appropriate orders.

    4

    6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material

    placed on record, there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel

    for the petitioner that only as per the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar

    Card, the age of the girl is 16 ½ years. It is a case where the petitioner and the

    victim girl eloped for the purpose of marriage and after coming to know that

    her mother has given a complaint, she came back. Investigation is completed

    and charge sheet is also filed. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances

    of the present case, this Court is inclined to release the petitioner/accused on

    bail on the following conditions:

    i. The petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.

    20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties for a like

    sum each, to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Junior Civil

    Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

    ii. The petitioner/accused shall not directly or indirectly tamper with

    evidence nor influence, intimidate, or induce any prosecution witness.

    iii. The petitioner/accused shall surrender his passport, if any, to the

    Investigating Officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he

    shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the concerned Court.

    iv. The petitioner/accused shall not leave the country without the express

    permission from the concerned Court.

    v. The petitioner/accused shall attend before the Trial Court for every

    adjournment without fail.

    5

    7. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution

    shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

    8. It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are only for

    the purpose of deciding the bail application and they shall not be construed as

    opinion on the merits of the Crime.

    9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.

    As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in

    this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

    __________________________________________
    DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
    Date: 31.03.2026.

    UPS
    6

    26
    THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

    CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2398/2026

    Dt.31.03.2026

    UPS



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here