JAMMU NITEESH KUMAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accusedon bail in Cr.No.78 of 2025ofGurla Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered against the petitioner/Accused herein for the offences punishable under Sections 351 (2), 64 (2)(m),65(1),78(1)(i)of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), Section 5(I) read with 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The case of the prosecution is that on 17.07.2025 at about 18.00 hours, the complainant stated that for the past two years the accused had been taking photographs with her by inducing her with deceptive words under the guise of love. On one occasion, the accused called her to Sunitha’s house, took her inside, and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. Thereafter, he again took her to his own house and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. When she was studying in X Class, she went on a picnic to Visakhapatnam along with her classmates, during which the accused took her photographs and later shared them with the village Sarpanch, Pathivada Bhaskara Rao. The accused also followed 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8587 of 2025 Dated 08.09.2025 her wherever she went and threatened to throw acid on her if she refused to marry him. Even though the matter was placed before the village elders, it remained unresolved.

Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there has been a marriage proposal between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and, therefore, there is no continuity of the offence. There are no adverse antecedents against the petitioner. The petitioner is a famous Koko player and a call letter was issued from the competent authority for his participation in the game. Hence, it is urged to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Shridhar v.State of Karnataka1, wherein the petitioner therein was enlarged on bail.

Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutorvehemently opposed the grant of bail the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material 1 Crl.P.No.100025 of 2025 dated 29.01.2025 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8587 of 2025 Dated 08.09.2025 witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

On the other hand, Ms. Samantha Krishna Sriramakavacham, the learned Legal Aid Counsel, while reiterating the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner stating that if the petitioner is released on bail, his release would definitely and surely endanger the life and limb of the victim. The detention of the petitioner is warranted for the safety and security of the de-facto complainant/respondent No.2/victim girl. The petitioner started the offence of penetrative sexual assault on the victim when she was studying in X Class itself and it has continued till the registration of the case. The citation relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable, as in that case the accused therein was in judicial custody for one year. There is also a threat of acid attack given by the petitioner to the respondent No.2/victim girl, and she has reiterated the same in her statement recorded under Section 164 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 183 of ‘the BNSS’. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the bail application. 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8587 of 2025 Dated 08.09.2025

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Legal Counsel, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

As seen from the record, the petitioner/sole accused is aged about 22 years. The petitioner and the victim girl belong to the same caste. The offence had taken place on multiple occasions. At present, the victim is 17 years old. From herX class onwards, the petitioner allegedly committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. The victim girl, in her 164 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ statement before the learned Magistrate, stated that there is a life threat from the petitioner and that she also faced a threat of pouring acid on her. So far, only 14 witnesses have been examined, and some more witnesses are to be examined. The release of the petitioner would surely endanger the life and limb of the victim. At this juncture, the release of the petitioner is unwarranted. His detention is required to be continued for some more time in the interest of justice. The Petitioner was arrested on

17.07.2025. He has been in the judicial custody for the past 53 days only.

In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Shridharsupra, the petitioner therein was arrested on 19.10.2023 and he has been in judicial custody for more than one year even before commencement of the trial. In this case, even the investigation is at a nascent stage, therefore the decision relied by the petitioner is not much helpful to him. Hence, there are no merits for granting bail to the petitioner. 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8587 of 2025 Dated 08.09.2025