← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRLP/4106/2017dismissed

N.Veera Kumar v. The State Of Telangana

2017-07-31T.Sunil Chowdary2 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4106 of 2017 ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed, by the petitioner-accused No.3, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.151 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Chandanagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(1) read with 109 of IPC and Sections 6 read with 8, and 12, 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). 2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no relation whatsoever with accused Nos.1 and 2. She further submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case; therefore, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner prima facie constitute the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner; therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

3.

A perusal of the record reveals that the father of the victimby name Mounika is the de facto complainant and the petitioner is accused No.3. Even as per the remand report, the petitioner committed the alleged offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. As per the allegations made in the remand report, the petitioner is the uncle of the victim by courtesy. It is further alleged that the petitioner disrobed the victim in a car and took her nude photographs. It is also alleged that the petitioner, by

showing those photographs, has been black-mailing the victim girl. The record prima facie reveals the role played by the petitioner. A perusal of the record reveals that the investigation is in progress. 4.

Taking into consideration the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.

Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed.

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J July 31, 2017 YS