Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dammu Gopalam vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 November, 2025
APHC010546532025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10616/2025
Between:
DAMMU GOPALAM, S/O. SRIRAMULU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
POLICE CONSTABLE (PC 2148), KASIBUGGA P.S., R/O. HARIJANA
STREET, SRIMUKHALINGAM VILLAGE, JALUMURU MANDAL,
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. XXXXXX, RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS ER THE COURT'S
ORDER DATED 23.10.2025 IN CRL.P.NO.10616 OF 2025.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2. PRAVEEN KUMAR TADISETTI
2
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.10616 of 2025
Dated 19.11.2025
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.237 of 2025 of Tekkali Urban Police Station, Srikakulam District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused herein for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'the IPC').
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned legal aid counsel for respondent No.2, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
3. Sri G.Maheswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been working as a Police Constable. He is aged about 39 years. He is a married one. The allegations leveled against the petitioner are all false, concocted, and fabricated. The petitioner has not committed any offence. He is innocent. He is ready to abide by any conditions, in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail. There is no case pending against the petitioner. The case in F.I.R.No.19/2020 was registered on 12.01.2020 against the petitioner under Sections 354, 506, 354A, 354C, and 354D of 'the IPC', but the case was referred as false as per the police Web Application View/FIR.
4. Per contra, Mr. T. Praveen Kumar, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2, submits that when the victim had been to the police station 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10616 of 2025 Dated 19.11.2025 with some grievance, the petitioner, being a Police Constable, gained the confidence of respondent No.2 and dominated her will by undue influence. Later, abusing his position, the petitioner established physical contact with respondent No.2. The petitioner, being a married Police Constable, maintained a live-in relationship with respondent No.2, deceived her for a substantial amount of money, and caused miscarriage to respondent No.2 by administering certain pills. The petitioner had taken respondent No.2 as if she were his wife, stayed with her in several hotels posing her as his wife, and harassed her physically and financially. The petitioner is not entitled to any lenience. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1 , and urged this Court to dismiss the petition.
5. On the other hand, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed granting bail to the petitioner, contending that the Investigating Officer has conducted a thorough investigation and laid the charge sheet on 07.11.2025, and that the accusation is well founded. It is urged to dismiss the petition as the petitioner, on an earlier occasion, was involved in a similar kind of offence, and there are bank transactions between the petitioner and respondent No.2.
6. On seeing the record, the petitioner, being a Police Constable aged about 39 years, working in Kasibugga Police Station, has maintained a live-in 1 Crl.A.No.329 of 2021, dated 18.03.2021 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10616 of 2025 Dated 19.11.2025 relationship with respondent No.2. There are direct eyewitnesses to the abuse of the position of the petitioner. L.W.2 is the owner of the flat. There are other witnesses who spoke about the contents of the statement of L.W.1. In the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2, respondent No.2 got conceived and she was later aborted by administering certain pills by the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 16.09.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 65 days.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh 2 , at paragraph Nos.14 and 16 it is held as under:
14. The trial court not only erroneously disbelieved the prosecutrix, but quite uncharitably and unjustifiably even characterized her as a girl "of loose morals" or "such type of a girl..."
16. We must express our strong disapproval of the approach of the trial court and its casting a stigma on the character of the prosecutrix. The observations lack sobriety expected of a judge.
The Courts are expected to use self-restraint while recording such findings which have larger repercussions so far as the future of the victim of the sex crime is concerned and even wider implications on the society as a whole - where the victim of crime is discouraged - the criminal encouraged and in turn crime gets rewarded!'
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh supra at paragraph No.42 it is held as under:
"This Court therefore holds that the use of reasoning/language which diminishes the offence and tends to trivialize the survivor, is especially to be avoided under all circumstances. Thus, the following conduct, actions or situations are hereby deemed irrelevant, e.g. - to say that the survivor had in the past consented to such or similar acts or that she behaved promiscuously, or by her acts or clothing, provoked the alleged action of the accused, that she behaved in a manner unbecoming of chaste or "Indian"2
(1996) 2 SCC 384 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10616 of 2025 Dated 19.11.2025 women, or that she had called upon the situation by her behavior, etc. These instances are only illustrations of an attitude which should never enter judicial verdicts or orders or be considered relevant while making a judicial decision; they cannot be reasons for granting bail or other such relief. Similarly, imposing conditions that implicitly tend to condone or diminish the harm caused by the accused and have the effect of potentially exposing the survivor to secondary trauma, such as mandating mediation processes in non-compoundable offences, mandating as part of bail conditions, community service (in a manner of speaking with the so-called reformative approach towards the perpetrator of sexual offence) or requiring tendering of apology once or repeatedly, or in any manner getting or being in touch with the survivor, is especially forbidden. The law does not permit or countenance such conduct, where the survivor can potentially be traumatized many times over or be led into some kind of non-voluntary acceptance, or be compelled by the circumstances to accept and condone behavior what is a serious offence".
9. There are certain financial transactions between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is aged about 28 years. When she had been to the police station for her grievances, she was trapped by the petitioner.
10. In view of the filing of the charge sheet and the fact that the accusation is well founded against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this juncture. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 19.11.2025 RSI/PRA 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10616 of 2025 Dated 19.11.2025 25 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10616 of 2025 Date:19.11.2025 RSI/PRA