| |
CDJ 2025 APHC 1786
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI |
| Parties : Yempadapu Rohit Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P., Amaravati, Parvathipuram Town Police Station. |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: Sricharan Telaprolu, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor. |
| Date of Judgment : 04-12-2025 |
| Head Note :- |
| Criminal Procedure Code - Section 372/374(2)/378(4) - |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C
- Section 151 CPC
- Section 15A of the SCs & STs (PoA) Act
- Section 14A of the SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989
- Sections 420, 376 r/w 34 of IPC
- Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015
- SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989
- SCs & STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015
2. Catch Words:
bail, criminal appeal, investigation, intimidation, SC/ST (PoA) Act, IPC, Cr.P.C, CPC, personal bond, sureties, victim, threat, regular bail
3. Summary:
The appellant, accused of offences under the IPC and the SC/ST (PoA) Act, sought regular bail after being in judicial custody for 47 days. The Special Judge had dismissed his bail application on the ground that the complainant might be threatened. The High Court found no material to substantiate that threat and noted that the investigation period of 60 days was nearing completion. Consequently, the Court set aside the Special Judge’s order and granted bail on a personal bond with conditions, including cooperation with investigation and non‑intimidation of the victim. The Court clarified that its observations do not prejudice the merits of the case. All pending interlocutory applications were ordered to stand closed.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to pleased to set aside the Order Dated 14.11.2025 in CrI.M.P.No.1182 of 2025 the file of the Court of The Special Judge For Trial Of Offences Under SC/ST (POA) ACT-CUM-IV Additional District And Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram and enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on regular bail in Crime No. 154 of 2025 of Parvathipuram Town Police Station, Vizianagaram District, on such terms and conditions
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of Certified copy of CrI.M.P. No. 1182 of 2025 on the file of the Court of The Special Judge For Trial Of Offences Under SC/ST (POA) ACT-CUM-IV Additional District And Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram which arouse out of Cr.No.154 Of 2025 Of Parvathipuram Town Police station, Vizianagaram)
1. Heard Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the appellant/A1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that complainant was intimated under Section 15A of the SCs & STs (PoA) Act on 03.12.2025. None appeared for the complainant.
2. The appeal is filed under Section 14A of the SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989 challenging the order dated 14.11.2025 rendered in Crl.M.P.No.1182 of 2025 on the file of learned Spl.Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum-IV Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, connected with Crime No.154 of 2025 of Parvathipuram Town Police Station, Vizianagaram District.
3. The appellant was arraigned as accused No.1 in the above crime. The F.I.R. was registered on 16.09.2025 for the offence under Sections 420, 376 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015.
4. The allegation is that the appellant/A1 promised the victim to marry. The victim believed the petitioner and therefore, they had relationship. Subsequently, the petitioner refused to marry the victim, and intimidated her and abused her in the name of caste. Hence, the victim presented a report to the police, which was registered as F.I.R. mentioned above.
5. The appellant/A1 was arrested on 19.10.2025 since then he is in judicial custody.
6. The appellant filed application before the learned Special Court vide Crl.M.P.No.1182 of 2025 to enlarge him on bail. The learned Special Court dismissed the application under order dated 14.11.2025, now under challenge.
7. The learned Special Court dismissed the application on the ground that defacto-complainant i.e., victim opposed the application submitting that there is possibility of threatening her to settle the case.
8. On perusal of the order of the learned Special Court, nothing has been come across to substantiate the alleged possibility of threatening the victim to settle the case.
9. Admittedly, F.I.R. was registered on 16.09.2025 as per the provisions of the SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989. The investigation shall be completed in sixty (60) days from the date of registration of F.I.R. So, by this date, investigation being completed by the police to lay report before the Special Court in accordance with law. The petitioner is already in judicial custody for the last 47 days.
10. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the criminal appeal is liable to be allowed, by setting aside the order of learned Special Judge under challenge.
11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The order dated 14.11.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1182 of 2025 on the file of learned Spl.Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs/STs (PoA) Act- cum-IV Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, connected with Crime No.154 of 2025 of Parvathipuram Town Police Station, Vizianagaram, is set aside, and the appellant/A1 be released on bail, subject to the following conditions
i. The appellant/A1 shall be enlarged on bail, on executing a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two (02) sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court.
ii. On such release, the appellant/A1 shall join the investigation on the request made by the concerned Station House Officer.
iii. The appellant/A1 shall not leave the country without permission of the Court.
iv. The appellant/A1 shall not intimidate or annoy the victim or her family members in any manner.
v. If the appellant/A1 violates any of the above conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application before the concerned Special Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
12. Before parting with the petition, it is made it clear that the observations made by this Court with regard to the facts of the case will not affect the merits of the case.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
|
| |
