The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 480 and 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is shown as Accused Crime No 37 ot 2025, dated on26-02-2025 in PSC 28 ol 2025 on the file CRLP MP 42 OF 2025, dated 19-6_2025, of IN THE COURT OF THE HON,BLE 1st Addl DlSTR|CT and SESSION JUDGE AT KAMAREDDY. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SOWMYADEEP representing M/s GIX LAW FIRM AND LEGAL SERVICES, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri SYED YASAR MAMOON, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICtr J. SREENIVAS RAO C|UMINAL PETITION No.835l of 2025 ORDER: Tiris Crinrinal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 48i ol Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for shorl 'BNSS') seeking bail to the pctitioner/accused in Crime No.37 of 2025 in Crt.M.p.No.42 of 2025 in PSC No.2ft of 2025 on the file of I Additionat District and Sessions Judge rt Kamareddy, registered lor the oflenccs punishable under Sections 67, 6a(2)(fl(m) o1'Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for shorl'BNS') and Seotion 5 (l) (n) r/w.6 of The Protection of Children From Sexual Olfences A*,2A12 (fbr shorr 'POCSO Act').

2. The case ol Lhe prosecution is that the accused allegecl to have committed rape and penetrative sexual assault on victirn girl, who is aged about l6 years at thc relevant tifire. The alleged incident stated to have taken place on 25.02.2025, at about 22 00 hours in I\4asanipalle Village of Ycllareddy Mandal. Accused is being prosecuted for offences under Sections 81 and64 (Z) (0 (-) of BNS and Section 5 (l) (n) r/w Section (r of the POCSO Act. 2 %:r- . r.]*'&rt \\ \..\ \{t"'r . .r -

3. Heard Mr.Sowmyadeep, learned counsel representing M/s.Gix Law Fim and Legal Services, and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the off'cnce and he was falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that there are previous disputes between the family of the victirn girl and the family of the petitioner. To dissolve the said disputes, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in thc complaint or in the remand case diary, the ingredients under Sections 87 and 64 (Z) (0 (m) of BNS and Section 5 (l) (n) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act, are not attracted against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2025, since then he was in judicial custody.'l'he investigating officer after conducting investigation. filed thc charge shcet on04.05.2025 and the learned Sessions Courl taken cognizance and the same was numbered as S.C.No.2S of 2025 and the matter is coming up for Trial. He further submitted that petitioner is eking out his livelihood by doing tractor driver and his entire farnily is depending upon his income. Petitioner is the only bread winrcr to his family and he is ready and willing to-,co-operate 3 with the disposal of the case, pending before the Court below and abide by tlie conditions which are going to be imposed by this court.

5. Per :ontra, lcarned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted th at the petitioneL has cornrnitted the grave offence. He further submitted that the investigating officer already filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as S.C.No.28 of 2025 and the triat schedule was already fixed. At this stage the petitioner is not entitled fbr grant of hait.

6. llavins, considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal olthe material available on record, it reveals that there arc specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of Section 5 (l) (n) r/w Section 6 of the pOCSO Act. The recor:d further reveals that the investigating officer after conducting the investigation, filed the charge sheet on 04.05.2025 ard the leamed Sessions Courl has taken cognizance and the same was numbered as S.C.No.28 ol 2025. The record furlher reveals that the rnatter is corning up for trial schedule. It is also relevant to place on record that the Hon'ble Apex Court in X v. State of Rajasthan snd I l t 4 another /, specifically held that once the trial commences and the a.r, prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Couft or the High Courl should be loath in entertaining the bail application ol the accused. In the case on hand, there are serious allegations against the petitioner to attract the provisions of POCSO Act. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in S.C.No.2S of 2025, the trial schedule was already fixed.

1. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, this court is not inclined to grant bail in lavour of the petitioner. As pet the provisions of the POCSO Act, the Special Court has to decide the matter within a period of 1 year. Hence, leamed Sessions Court is directed to conduct the trial and dispose of S.C.No.28 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible.

8. Accordingly, the Crirninal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, penline if //TRUE COPY// 11f, shall stand closed. SD/. T. JAYASREE UTY REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER

1. 1st Addl. District and Session Judge At Kamareddy 2. The Station House Officer, Yellareddy Police Station, Kamareddy. 3. One CC to SRI M/s GIX LAW FIRM AND LEGAL SERVICES Advocate IoPUCI

4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies II To, HIGH COURT DATED: 1410712025 I ORDER CRLP.No.8351 of 2025 2 5 SEP iU25 '.t. '.,, \l ./ DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION E // fi .45