The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that rape cannot be considered merely as a physical assault. The court further emphasized that adopting a lenient approach while granting bail in such cases is against the interest of society.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao stated:
"The offence of rape is punishable by rigorous imprisonment for at least ten years, extendable to life imprisonment with a fine. Gang rape carries twenty years' rigorous imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment with a fine. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is grave in nature. In fact, rape cannot be considered as a mere physical assault. In an occurrence of this type, the resistance from the victim cannot be expected. There is no allegation that the victim was inimical or was acting against the instigation of somebody else. Therefore, the cases relating to granting of bail in offences of rape are required to be approached differently."
Read Also: Court's Delay in Urgent Notice Defeats Purpose of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Background of the Case
The case pertained to a petition seeking regular bail for the accused (petitioner no.1) in connection with an FIR registered under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including:
- Section 70(1): Gang Rape
- Section 77: Voyeurism
- Section 351(2): Criminal Intimidation
- Section 69: Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means
- Section 75(1): Sexual Harassment
- Information Technology Act Provisions: Related to recording and sharing explicit content
As per the prosecution, the accused, a final-year law student, developed a relationship with the complainant, a third-year law student, under false promises of love and marriage. Allegedly, the petitioner deceitfully coerced the complainant into sexual intercourse and secretly recorded the act.
Read Also: Convenience of Litigants Over Advocates: AP High Court Upholds Sessions Court Shift
The situation escalated when the petitioner's friends (co-accused A2 to A4) allegedly showed the complainant these recordings and threatened to make them public unless she yielded to their sexual demands. Under duress, the complainant was allegedly forced into sexual acts with them, constituting gang rape. Unable to endure the trauma, she attempted suicide by hanging herself in a bedroom.
The court analyzed the severity of the allegations and emphasized that filing a charge sheet alone should not be the determining factor for granting bail. The observations included:
"Before adverting to the merits of the case, this Court would like to clarify that while the filing of a charge sheet is a significant factor in granting bail, it is not the sole criterion to be considered. This must be evaluated in conjunction with the facts and circumstances of the case at hand."
The court noted that the complainant’s recorded statements highlighted the key role of the petitioner in facilitating and enabling the crime. The judgment also pointed out that the petitioner allegedly played an active part in pressuring the victim and ensuring the participation of the co-accused.
Although the medical report did not indicate recent sexual intercourse, the court ruled that it does not eliminate the possibility of sexual assault.
Considering the gravity of the allegations and the involvement of the petitioner, the court refused to grant bail. The ruling emphasized that granting bail in such serious cases could send a wrong message to society and potentially hinder the pursuit of justice.
The judgment reinforces the judiciary's stance on treating sexual crimes with utmost seriousness and ensuring that the justice system does not provide undue leniency in such grave offences.
Case Details
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1986/2025
Case Name: Batha Vamsi v. The State Station House Officer
Date: 28.03.2025
