HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5528 and 5529 of 2014 Date: 15.05.2014 Crl.P.No.5528 of 2014 :
Between:
Setty Rajesh Babu … Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
… Respondent Crl.P.No.5529 of 2014 :
Between:
Smt. Boddepalli Krishnaveni … Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
… Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5528 and 5529 of 2014 COMMON ORDER :
These two criminal petitions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., are filed by the petitioners therein, who are A.1 and A.2, respectively, seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.138 of 2014 of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 354-A and D of I.P.C. and Section 11 r/w. 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the daughter of the defacto-complainant, by name Neelima, was studying 8th Class and the petitioners are neighbours of the defacto-complainant. Taking advantage of the absence of the defacto-complainant, the petitioners developed acquaintance with Neelima and use to talk to her. While the matter stood thus, when the said Neelima was taking bath in the bathroom, A.1 took photographs of Neelima with the aid of cell phone and started threatening to marry him and try to blackmail her demanding to satisfy his lust. A.2, being a woman, assisted A.1 in blackmailing Neelima. Basing on the complaint of the defacto-complainant, the above crime was registered against the petitioners.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that A.2 has not played any role in the commission of the alleged offences and no specific overtacts have been attributed to A.2 and hence sought to enlarge her on bail.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State opposed the petitions on the ground that the investigation is not yet completed, that too the offence alleged against the petitioners is a heinous crime against a child.
5. As seen from the material available on record, A.1, who is the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5528 of 2014, took photographs of Neelima, who is a child studying 8th Class, while she was taking bath. Taking such photographs with the help of cell phone would amount to an offence directly punishable under Section 354-A and D of I.P.C. and taking advantage of those photographs, threatening and blackmailing Neelima is a serious offence under Section 11 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Apart from that, A.2, who is the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5529 of 2014, aided A.1 in blackmailing Neelima with the help of the nude photographs taken by A.1. The material on record clearly pointing out the complicity of the accused for the alleged offences. Hence, I find prima-facie case against both the petitioners, who committed a heinous offence against a girl child studying 8th Class. Therefore, taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the offence, more particularly aiding of A.2, who is a woman, to A.1 in blackmailing a girl child is nothing but a heinous crime. Sex of A.2 is irrelevant when she stooped to an extent of aiding A.1 in blackmailing a girl child, by name Neelima. Hence, I do not find any ground to enlarge the petitioners on pre-arrest bail.
6. Accordingly, both the criminal petitions are dismissed.
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 15.05.2014.
Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5528 and 5529 of 2014 15.05.2014 (Msr)