Vemula Krishna Kiran Kumar vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 7 April, 2025

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Vemula Krishna Kiran Kumar vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 7 April, 2025

                                       1

 APHC010091442025
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                          [3369]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                    MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL
                     TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

                                  PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                     CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1953/2025

Between:

Vemula Krishna @ Kiran Kumar                        ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

                                     AND

State Of Andhra Pradesh                     ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. M SOLOMON RAJU

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

1) This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), has been filed by the
petitioner herein/A1 seeking regular bail, in Crime No.658 of 2024 of
Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered for the offences
punishable under Section 376(3) of IPC and section 89 of BNS and Section 6
of the POCSO Act.

2) Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the offence took place prior to
27.12.2024, at Ambedkar N
Nagar,
agar, Near DAV School, Kondapalli, A1 is the
maternal uncle by relation to the victim girl, aged about 14 years. A1 used to
works as a Pastor. Whenever, the accused used to come to Kondapalli, for
attending prayer in the church of victim girl’s maternal uncle, the accused
2

used to sleep in the house of victim girl and in Raj Kumar’s house and the
daughter of the accused is close friend to the victim girl and the accused used
to propose to her and mover closely with her. In the month of January 2024,
the victim girl attained her puberty and since then the accused moved very
closely with her and in the third week of February 2024, the accused forcibly
committed penetrative sexual assault against her without her consent and
since then he repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault against her
and finally he met physically with the victim girl in the month of August, 2024
and since April 2024 onwards, the victim girl missed her periods and on
observing her, her parents took her to Anu Hospital Mylavaram and there the
doctor examined her and confirmed that she is pregnant and did abortion on
26.12.2024.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
in judicial custody since 28.12.2024 and has been incarcerated since then.
The counsel further contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated
due to disputes with the victim’s parents. A previous bail application (Crl.M.P.
No. 8 of 2025) was filed before the Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences
under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Vijayawada, and
was dismissed on 22.01.2025. The investigation is complete, including the
potency test, except for the filing of the charge sheet. Therefore, the counsel
prays for the petitioner’s release on bail.

4) On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently
opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5) I have heard Sri M. Solomon Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri G. Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent
/ State. Learned counsel on either side reiterated their submissions, which are
on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report.

6) As seen from the record, the Defacto complainant/Victim is a minor girl
of 14 years of age. According to the Prosecution, it is a case of aggravated
3

penetrative sexual assault and sexual exploitation committed on the victim girl,
while she was studying 9th class, the Accused developed an acquaintance
with her while he attended the prayer meetings in the church of the victim girl’s
maternal uncle.

7) In Dharmander Singh @ Saheb V. The State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi)1,
the High Court of Delhi observed some parameters to deal with the bail
applications pertaining to the POCSO offences. The court emphasized the
significance of the age difference between the victim and the accused, noting
that a greater age gap may indicate a higher degree of perversion in the
alleged offence.

8) The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious
manner and not as a matter of course and reasons for grant of bail in cases
involving serious offences should be given. [See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V.
Rajesh Ranjan 2 ; Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta V. Central Bureau of
Investigation & another3; Vinod Bhandari V. State of Madhya Pradesh4;
and Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit V. State of Maharashtra5]

9) At the time of assigning reasons in order to grant/refuse bail, there
should not be discussion of merits and demerits of the evidence. [See State
of Bihar V. Rajballav Prasad @ Rajballav Prasad Yadav @ Rajballabh
Yadav6]

10) In support of the Prosecution’s case, Prosecution has recorded the
statement of material witnesses and the material placed supports the
Prosecution’s case. There is evidence on record connecting the petitioner with
the alleged offence under Section 376(3) of IPC and Section 89 of BNS and
section 6 of the POCSO Act 2012. Nothing has been brought to the notice of

1
2020 0 Supreme(Del) 1033
2
(2004) 7 SCC 528
3
(2012) 4 SCC 134, para 32
4
(2016) 15 SCC 389, para13
5
(2018) 11 SCC 458, para 29)
6
(2017) 2 SCC 178, para 15
4

the Court from the material on record or otherwise, causing the victim to
implicate the petitioner falsely in the present case.

11) Indeed, pre-trial imprisonment cannot be used as a substitute for the
punishment without the scrutiny of the evidence by the trial Court, but, at the
same time, in a case where a girl was in such a situation, as referred to
above, grant of bail to the petitioner, at this stage, may also have an adverse
impact on the society.

12) It is not necessary now to go into detail about the correctness or
otherwise of the allegations made against the accused as this is a subject
matter to be dealt with by the trial Judge. Where prima facie involvement of
the accused is apparent, the contentions raised regarding the contradictions in
the charge sheet are required to be tested at the time of trial, but not at this
stage. The period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the
petitioner/accused to be enlarged on bail. Filing of the charge sheet
establishes that after due investigation, the investigation agency, having found
materials, has placed the charge sheet for the trial of the petitioner.

13) Given above, considering the cumulative effect of entire facts and
circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the evidence and
keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and other
factors, like the nature of the offence, the manner, in which it has been
committed and its impact on the society, petitioner is not entitled to bail, at this
stage.

14) As a result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________
JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

Date: 07.04.2025
SAK
5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1953/2025

Date: 07.04.2025

SAK