Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa at the Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted bail to the defendant in a prominent case accused of rape and abduction. The ruling was issued following the Criminal Petition of 2024, wherein the petitioner requested ordinary bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, under the discerning judgment of Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, has granted bail to an individual embroiled in a case charged under severe allegations, including rape and abduction. This case, marked by its sensitive nature and the youth of the individuals involved, brings to the forefront the nuanced understanding of adolescent relationships by the judiciary.
Also Read- Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Young Man In Pune Stabbing Case (lawchakra.in)
The case, identified as Criminal Petition No. 1043 of 2024, saw the petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Facing charges under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alongside Sections 4 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the petitioner’s plea was rooted in claims of innocence against accusations of abducting and sexually assaulting a minor girl following her family’s disapproval of their relationship.
Justice Pratapa’s ruling was profound, not only for its immediate implications but also for its broader reflections on the nature of adolescent love and the judiciary’s role in such matters.
“The prosecutrix and the accused herein might have made a mistake in the affairs of the heart, however, the teenage psychology and adolescent love cannot be controlled by the Courts,”
the judge articulated, acknowledging the complex psychological landscape of teenage relationships.
The judgment further highlighted the importance of exercising judicial discretion in bail applications, referencing the Apex Court’s precedent in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar and others. It emphasized that bail is a discretionary relief, necessitating judicious and not automatic application. This perspective underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to weigh the merits of each case individually, ensuring that decisions are made with fairness and insight.
In deciding to grant bail, the court identified several compelling factors, including the absence of inducement or threat and the prolonged judicial custody of the accused since December 23, 2023. The judge noted,
“In the case of lack of inducement or threat, the Court must be conscious that they are not dealing with criminals,”
thereby differentiating between the accused’s actions and those typically associated with criminal intent.
The petitioner was subsequently released on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond and providing sureties as determined by the Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offenses under the POCSO Act, Machilipatnam. It’s important to note that the court’s observations were specifically tailored to address the bail petition and were not indicative of a judgment on the substantive merits of the case.
This decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court represents a significant moment in the intersection of law, psychology, and societal norms. It brings to light the delicate balance the judiciary must maintain in cases involving young individuals and the complex emotions that accompany adolescent relationships. By acknowledging the limitations of the courts in regulating matters of the heart, especially among adolescents, the judgment sets a precedent for a more nuanced and empathetic approach to legal proceedings in similar cases.