Eiiaik Kaleem v. The# State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PubII'C Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi

arguments of SRI ROSEDAR S.R.A Advocate for the petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent,I o122862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl [3369] (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2686/2025 Between : Shaik Kaleem ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND I The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Pet-ltioner/accused:

1.ROSEDAR S.R.A Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER:

#1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, lBNSS'), is filed On behalf Of the petitioner/Accused, seeking regular bail in connection With Crime No.818 of 2024 of Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur District.

#2. A case has been registered against the Petitioner/Accused for the I offences punishable under section 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, lBNS') and Section 6 r/w 5(m) of the Protection Of Children 'from sexual offences Act, 2012 (for short, {POCSO Act') . 3, The Prosecution's case, ln brief, iS that the Victim, approximately 6 years old, was the subject of a wr-ltten report submitted by the de facto _ \ cz=->- complainant, the victim's mother, On 06.ll.2024. ln the report, the de faCtO €` complainant stated that she regularly sent the victim girl to the pet'ltioner / accused for learn'lng urdu. Th6 petit'loner / accused conducted Private Classes at a mosque near their home. on o5.ll.2025, at approximately 8.30 PM, while the complainant was bathing the victim after her return from the Accusedls urdu class at the mosque, the victim began to cry, complain-lng of pain 'ln h?r private paris. upon further enquiry, the victim revealed that the petit'loner committed penetrat'lve sexual assault against her. After conSult'lng elders, the de facto complainant presented the report.

#4. The learned COunSel for the Petitioner asserts that the Charges Stem from financial disputes and a r'lval group's efforts to remove the Petitioner from his role as a priest and control an educational Center. The defacto COmPlainant, in collus'lon with the rival group, man-lpulated a ch'lld to fabricate the case. The petitioner, a married pr'lest with no criminal history, has led a clean life. The investigation is completed, and the charge sheet filed, w'lth no r'lsk of ev'ldence tampering. The wound Certificate and APFSL reports confirm the Charges are baseless. The petitioner poses nO flight risk and iS Willing to comply With ba'll condit'lons. since o9.ll.2024, Petitioner iS languishing 'ln ja'll. His prolonge'd detention causes hardship for h'ls family, making bail essential. Learned counsel prayed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

#5. On the Other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

#6. I have heard both Sides. Learned counsel On both Sides reiterated their submissions, wh'lch are on par with the content'lons presented in the petition and the report. '

#7. As seen from the record, the Defacto comPlainantMctim ®IS a minor g'Irl of 6 years Of age. According to the Prosecution, it iS a Case Of Penetrative sexual assault committed on the victim girl by the Accused. =E-h \=- t=`9 The Parameters for grantI'ng bail were consI-dered by the Hon'ble Supreme court -ln Bhagwan singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak1, J® whereI®n l't Was Observed aS under: "_12_.._Th,p gra, rt of bail !s. a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such dis?.retio? would have to be exercised in a judicious m;nner a;; ;;t as. ? matte: of_c?urse. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual fa;t: o!.the matter Peing dealt with by the court and may v;ry from ca;i i;;;=e. T_h_e_r,:__cL:_n__nP_t _be any. e:fia!s!iye parameters set out-for consi-ie;i-ni-t-ire application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that; (a), WhiI? granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature pf..accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusation: =;i-;il a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations; (b) re?son?ble ?pprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the ?.P:2Lre|hL=n^Si_On ,O.f tPere b?!ng a_ threat for the complai; ant :hould also weidrh with the Court in the matterofgrantofbaiI. . (_:!Ly!i!: it iS not ?:CePteq tO have the entire evidence establishing the g^u!t_:o_f_thI: _??Cu?P? beyond_ rPasPnable doubt but there ought to be aiw-a-is a Prima faCie Satisfaction Of the Court in support of the cha; ge. (`!!_Fr_i:pI:try _of pr.osecutior spoyld always be considered and it is only the elem?nt_of gpnuineness that shall have to be considered in the mairte-r-;f grant.of bail ard in the event of there being some doubt as to t;e g_e_n_u-I:e?Pss ?.I. tP? prosecution, in the normal course of events, i;e accused is entitled to have an order of bail.

#9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Saw/-ay Chant/ra v. cenfra/ Bt,reaur of whvesf,'gaf,-one, held as under.' "I:h.e.?bject of bai.I _is to secure the appearance of the accused person at h!=__tri_a_I_ by re€sona_ble ?mount of bail. The object of bail is neith5r-p-u-;;tiJ= ??_r,_P_r:YFntatiYe. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a pun; shment, !n.less.it can Pe required to ensure that an alccused person ;ill stand--h:Ils tr_i=I yh, en..ca.IIed TP_On. The Courts owe mo;e than ~verbal respect t6 -;ire I p_:!n_:_ip_Ie, fha.t pynishment begins after conviction, and that ejery ma; its deeTe.d to be..innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. D;tenti-o; -iin cru_s_t_o_d¥:__p=nPing completion _of trial could be a cause-of -great hardship. F:_o_:,_:irle. tO. .ti.me, pe?essity demands that some unco; victed pe; sol;-s ?h?u.Id be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance a{ th: i;i;I but.,in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In India, it wo; ld i= quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty ensh-rined in ir;e MAN U/SC/0924/2023 MANU/SC/1375/2011 I-5Sff52 _-_+x~J,I___ts#Jed 4 P,o_n_s_tit:_:_ipr tPat pny pe.rson should be punished in respect of any matter, u_PLO_:.,yPi?h: he. ha.s ?pt been convicted or that in an; circumst; noes, h6 sL!?rl_qJ be dePri.yFd_ of his liberty upon only the belief th'at -h; ;ill iimper'with tPe_ _y!tf_:ss?.s if left af liberty, save in the-most extraordinaiv circum'5;ances- 4pa: fro?. the q.upst-IOn Of Prevention being the object off:f;s;I-of i=iI,-one must .no.t lose sight of the fact that any iwiprison; ent before convictio; has a__:.:_b_st,::.t.ial punitiv.e c_ontent and it wodld be improper for any court to r.efus? bail as a mark of disapproval of former cond'uct'whethe;t;e =6i;s;d h£=:LP=?_n__convict?d .f?r it or not or to refuse bail to an -u;:;;;-;tieii:;;;n for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as-a i;:i-o;:"

#10. Th= Apex Court 'ln prasanta Kumar Sarkar V. Ashis Chatterjee and another3, has laI-d down the foIIowl'ng principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whetPpr tPere is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation-, (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail', (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated-, (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced-, and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. All ln Manoranifana sinh alias Gupta versus cBI4, the Honlble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable' that the party will appear to take his trial. otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jaI'l. Apart from above, court has to keep in mind nature of accusatl'ons, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, I whl-ch convictI'On Will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are Peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. MANu/SC/0916/2010 MAN U/SC/0128/2017 tt= e--o- r=iE 5 I

#12. The material on record indicates that the defacto complainant, victimJs mother, lodged a report that trie petitioner/accused commI-tted Penetratl-ve sexual assault agal-nst the victim, but such version of her is not corroborated by the medI'Cal evidence adduced On record. The wound certificate and the APSFSL report l'ndicate that no blood, no semen spermatozoa and no foreign material detected. upon considering the medical evidence l'n its entirety, it PrI'ma faCie contradicts the Prosecution's case. According to the prosecution, the victim girl informed that accused inserted his finger when the vl-ctim alone was in the tuition and for the last ten days, the accused is inserting his finger into her vagina. The wound certificate indI'CateS that no external l'njuries were observed or traces of such violence on the victl-m's body.

#13. The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as thl-s court have held in catena of I cases that accused is deemed to, be innocent till the time his/her guilt I-s not Proved, in accordance With law. Since guilt, if any, of the petitioner is yet to be |estabII'Shed On record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence, this court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the petitioner for an I'ndefinite Period during trial. No doubt, petI®tiOner in the case at hand has also been booked under the relevant provI'SiOnS Of POCSO Act. Apprehension expressed by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, that in the event of being e`nlarged on bal-I, bail petitioner may flee from justice can be best met by Putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. petl-tioner, who is otherwise a first offender, being local resident of the area shall always remain avaI-Iable for investigation of the trial as and when called by the Investigating Agency. I

#14. The material on record indicates that the petjtl-oner has been I-nCarCerated in jail since 09.ll.2024; police filed the charge sheet after .completion of the investigation. Thus, the petitioner/Accused is no longer required for the investl'gation. So, the release of the accused would not cause hampering of investigation. It I'S uncertain When the trial in the present case will commence. There is no material to chow that the grant of bail to the c==± Petitioner would defeat the ends of justice. Nothing on the record suggests- that the Accused will likely corimit an offence, if released on bail.

#15. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner are subject to the trialls outcome. The trial is anticipated to take a considerable amount of time. I Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until his guilt or innocence is determined. lt is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the Prosecution evidence or intimidate th`e witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation.

#16. The petitioner's continued preventive custody cannot be based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. lt is not the prosecution's case that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. The record indicates that the petitioner has a permanent abode, and there is no reasonable concern of absconding. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceratl-on at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Given the same, the Petitioners' release would not hamper the investigation.

#17. ln view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is a//owed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in, the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) wI'th two Sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur, with following condl'tions: I r_-6Si==--=P ``-`.-_.p (a) on such release, the petl'tloner sha" appear before the concerned jnvestI'gatl'on officer .twlce ln a week I.e., on every sunday and wednesday between 10.00 AM and o1.00 PM for a perI'Od of +hr-- /^^\ __ three (o3) months. (b) The petl'tl'oner sha" cooperate wl-th the jnvestI'gatjon by appearl'ng at the polI|Ce Stall-On as and when thel-r presence l's requI'red. (c) The petl-tI'Oner sha" not tamper with the prosecutI'On evidence nor hamper the l'nvest,-gatl'on of the case Ion any manner whatsoever,- (d) The petI-tjOner sha" not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acqual'nted wI|th the facts of the case so as to dl-ssuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or the Police officer,I and (e) The petltIOner sha" not vjsI't the place of resI'dence and school of the vl-ctjm. (o The petjtl-oner sha" not leave the terrltory of lndla wl'thout the prlor I PermI-SSl'On of the Court. (g) The petjtjoner sha" surrender passport, jf any, before the jnvestigatjng agency.

#18. lt ,'s made clear that the petjtl-oner sha" scrupulously comply with the above condI'tiOnS and breach of any of the above condI-tl'OnS Will be viewed seriously and prosecution js at liberty to move an applI-Cat, Ion for cancellatl-on of the bal|'. However, nothing expressed herel'nabove sha" be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. MI'SCellaneous pending appljcatI'Ons, jf any, sha" stand closed. SDI_ A- ASSISl VIJA~*A` +BA B dr `REdisTRAR E //TRUE COPY// F|. To, 1 The JudJCla' Flrst class Maglstrate cwm specla' Mob,'e court, Guntur, Guntur D,-strl'ct 2 The Deputy superlntendent of po'ICe, DJSha Po'lce sfatJOn, Guntur, Guntur DI-Str,'ct \ -- The superJ'ntendent, DIStrJCt Ja,I, Guntur, Guntur D,'str,'ct T,hnee sct=tltOon sH::sReOOsm=DeiR*Fl:pidu^:Jt:::I I:eu n==artIDolnS,tr=: ntu r DI StrICt oneccto sR'.ROSEDAPob A I I _..~ vu [u t>-HJ. ROSEDAR s.R.A Advocate [opucJ _ _`u.,ul I, uurllur Dl-str,'ct Two cos to puBL'C PROSECUTOR, HJgh Court of Andhra pradesh [OUT] one spare copy HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED :01 /04/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.2686 of 2025 ALLOWED +,`-I /;{,if¥ +€,i -==.S__i-:Sa;-+,`' i±:?=5:-rlf---.i;-i:-'=ii::-I::```` LesEL_H~I Ei= E= C* Cr C- Eii -_\ EEHrmEiH*+E!=EE ir- is-J`ll..¢l`_l~ _:_,r|.-..`-(.