Kunja Roja vs The State Of Telangana

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

The petitioner is arrayed as the accused No.2 in FIR No.143 of 2026 on the file of Tekulapalli Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 89, 49, 324(4), 115(2), 351(2), read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), Sections 5(i)(ii) read with 6 of POCSO Act.

Heard Mr.J.P.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that, in the year 2022, when the de facto complainant was a minor, accused No.1 enticed her on the promise of love and marriage and sexually exploited her. Subsequently, when she became pregnant, the petitioner/accused No.2, along with accused No.1, allegedly compelled her to consume certain pills with the intention of causing an abortion, which resulted in a miscarriage on 10.10.2022. It is further alleged that, during the course of the panchanama, the petitioner, along with his family members, participated in a mediation before the village elders and threatened the victim with dire consequences. Based on the said allegations, the present crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case on account of his relationship with accused No.1, the petitioner being the junior paternal aunt of accused No.1. It is further submitted that, even according to the complaint, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2022, whereas lodged the report with an inordinate and unexplained delay. According to the learned counsel, such unexplained delay indicates false implication with an ulterior motive. It is also contended that the allegation that the petitioner compelled the de facto complainant to consume abortion pills is not supported by any material. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are relatives and that, owing to certain misunderstandings between them, the present case has been falsely foisted against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, contending that the involvement of the petitioner has been specifically stated in the complaint. It is submitted that the petitioner advised accused No.1 to administer pills to the de facto complainant for the purpose of causing a miscarriage. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that, during the investigation, so far, 18 witnesses had been examined and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for an effective and comprehensive investigation. On these grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

The specific allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had advised for administering the pills for causing miscarriage and even threatened with dire consequences along with other family members when the affair between accused No.1 and de facto complainant was placed before the elders for mediation. At this stage, considering the application for anticipatory bail, the veracity of prosecution case or the defence need not be adjudicated as these aspects require detailed investigation and to be tested if required during trial.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, identified that various factors to be considered to decide the anticipatory bail including the nature and gravity of acquisitions, exact role attributed to the accused, the likelihood of absconding, possibility of tampering with evidence and the genuine necessity of custodial interrogation. It is well settled that arrest should not be made routinely and the investigating agency shall justify the necessity of custodial detention in the present case. The allegations in particular are against accused No.1. However, the role of the petitioner has added and advised the accused No.1 in commission of offences has been attributed.

Having regard to the allegations attributed against the petitioner and expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and the material presently available on record, this Court does not find any compelling circumstance demonstrating the necessity for custodial interrogation. At this stage, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner is likely to abscond, evade the investigation, tamper with the prosecution evidence, or influence the witnesses. In the absence of such circumstances, and keeping in view the settled principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a fit case for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction to grant the relief of anticipatory bail.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to following conditions.

It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.