Learned counsel for petitioner submits that even if all the allegations are taken on its face value, the aforementioned offences are not attracted. Even as per the complaint, it is with the consent of complainant they had sexual intercourse, Section 376 IPC has no application. He submits that Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC&ST (POA) Act are also not attracted because in this case complainant herself has stated that she voluntarily went to A-1 and gave consent for intercourse and there is no allegation of abuse in the name of caste. He further submits that earlier basing on whatsapp message sent by her to a third person, which was received by Sub Inspector of Police, on suomoto he has registered the complaint with similar allegations. When 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim was recorded, the de facto complainant stated that she has not made such allegations.-Taking into consideration the present report and the earlier report given by the complainant, prima facie it appears that the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioner. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner.

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4288 of 2021

ORDER:-

 This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of

the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking regular bail

to the petitioner/A-1 in connection with Crime No.278 of 2021 of

Buttaigudem Police Station, West Godavari District, for the offences

punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 366, 370, 420 r/w 109 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC&ST

(POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 5 of Immoral Traffic

(Prevention) Act, 1956.

2. The case of prosecution is that A-1 is working as Project

Officer, ITDA, KR Puram and the de facto complainant belongs to STKoya applied for the post of attender in ITDA and the 2nd accused

represented that he has got acquaintance with A-1 and he will

provide Government job. On 20.11.2020, A-2 called on the

complainant over phone and informed that the order copy is with A-1

and he has to personally serve the copy to her and on that the

complainant approached the ITDA office and returned as A-1 was not

available in the office. Again on 10.12.2020, A-2 made a call to the

complainant, informed her that A-1 is ready with the copy of order to

serve to her and asked her to meet A-1 for collecting the order copy

and that A-2 took her on his vehicle to the quarters of A-1. A-2

handed over her to A-3, A-3 took her from the back door of the

quarters of A-1. Accordingly, the complainant went to the quarters of

A-1, on that A-1 ascertained the particulars and asked her to

participate in sexual intercourse with him if she wants job of

attendor. The complainant agreed and participated in sexual 

2

intercourse with A-1 and later A-2 on his motorcycle dropped at her

house. On 20.12.2020 A-2 called the complainant informing that A-1

would definitely give the order copy to her and A-4 would come to her

to pick her up. In that aspect, the complainant waited at the road. At

that time, A-4 to A-7 came on their bikes and took her to the

quarters of A-1, believing that A-1 would give the order copy to her.

A-1 again sexually enjoyed her. Again 15 days later, A-2 asked her to

meet A-1. Then, she abused A-2 and warned him severely and on

that A-2 threatened her. Basing on the said report, the present crime

was registered.

3. Heard Sri Chandrasekhar Ilapakurti, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that even if all the

allegations are taken on its face value, the aforementioned offences

are not attracted. Even as per the complaint, it is with the consent of

complainant they had sexual intercourse, Section 376 IPC has no

application. He submits that Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC&ST

(POA) Act are also not attracted because in this case complainant

herself has stated that she voluntarily went to A-1 and gave consent

for intercourse and there is no allegation of abuse in the name of

caste. He further submits that earlier basing on whatsapp message

sent by her to a third person, which was received by Sub Inspector of

Police, on suomoto he has registered the complaint with similar

allegations. When 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim was recorded,

the de facto complainant stated that she has not made such

allegations. He further submits that the de facto complainant for the 

3

reasons best known to her, has implicated the petitioner and he has

been languishing in jail since 25.06.2021.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on the other hand

submits that petitioner has promised the complainant to secure a job

and exploited her sexually and there are specific overt acts against

the petitioner. He further submits that investigation is pending, as

such, at this stage petitioner is not entitled for bail.

6. Taking into consideration the present report and the earlier

report given by the complainant, prima facie it appears that the

alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioner. Hence, this

Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/

A-1 shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.278 of 2021 of

Buttaigudem Police Station, West Godavari District on his executing

self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two

sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari

District.

 Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

 ___________________________

 LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

Date: 05.08.2021

KA 

4

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

(Allowed)

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4288 of 2021

Date: 05.08.2021

KA