*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR +CRIMINAL PETITION No.8410 OF 2009 %Dated 22-10-2009 Crl. P. No. 8410 of 2009 # Vemula Krishna Prasad, S/o.Mogili, Aged about 30 years, R/o.Narsampet (V), & (M), Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER VERSUS $ The State of A.P., through P.S. Narsampet, District Warangal, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT ! Counsel for Petitioner : M/s. G. ANANDAM ^ Counsel for Respondent No. : Addl. Public Prosecutor < GIST : > HEAD NOTE : ? Cases referred : --- HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8410 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner who is accused in Crime No.178 of 2009 of Narsampet police station, Warangal District, seeking bail under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was arrested for the offences under Sections 448, 354, 195-A and 506 of I.P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The Criminal justice delivery system has to consider not only the case of the accused but also the difficulties faced by the victims. Victims are being forgotten by everybody. Duty of the police does not end by filing the charge sheet. They have to see the safety and security of the victims and witnesses. Atrocities on women have been on increase, this case is an example of such atrocities on women. The case of the prosecution is that the victim who was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher and while going to her school from Narsampet to PS Dubba Thanda hamlet of Govindapur of Gudur Mandal, the petitioner used to harass her demanding to marry him. Finally, on the report given by the victim a case in Crime No.55 of 2007 under Sections 506 and 509 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner. While the said case was pending, on 13-08-2007, when the victim was proceeding to school and when she arrived near Apparajpally village, the petitioner alleged to have followed her, dragged her into the nearby shrubs and outraged her modesty. Again on the report given by the victim, a case in Crime No.138 of 2007 under Section 354 I.P.C. was registered at Gudur police station. After filing charge sheet, the case in Crime No.55 of 2007 came up for trial before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsampet, the victim was summoned to depose before the court on 22-09-2009 and when the victim was in the court premises on that day at about 11-00 am, the petitioner threatened her that he would kill her, her husband and other family members if she deposes against him before the Court. She got frightened and did not depose before the court and the case was adjourned. On the next day i.e. on 23-09-2009 when she was alone in her house, the petitioner is alleged to have trespassed into her house, caught hold of her hand and demanded to fulfill his lust, when she raised cries, her parents came there and rescued her. Again a case in Crime No.178 of 2009 was registered under Sections 441, 354, 195(A) and 506 of I.P.C. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27-09-2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a gap of more than two years from the first incident and the last incident and that the prosecution version is un-believable since nobody would enter into the house, when the parents of the victim were present in the house and try to outrage the modesty of a woman. It is also his submission that if at all the version of the victim that she was threatened in Court premises is true, she could have reported the matter to the Magistrate or police and no such report was given. The learned Additional Public prosecutor submits that the conduct and attitude of the petitioner shows that he has threatened the victim and prevented her from deposing before the Court and again on the next day tried to outrage her modesty and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is no safety to the victim and she may not be in a position to appear before the Court without fear and depose. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in the given circumstances. Bail is rather concession given to the accused to enable him to defend himself. By applying for bail the petitioner gives an assurance that he would attend the court as and when required and abide by the conditions and he will not repeat the similar offences and that he would not tamper the prosecution evidence. If the petitioner misuses the liberty granted to him, threatens the witnesses or tries to tamper the evidence or stalls the trial proceedings he has no right to continue to be on bail. If the court is satisfied that there is prima facie material to show that the petitioner has again committed similar or any other offence he cannot be enlarged as a matter of right. If the witnesses particularly victims of rape, outrage of modesty or a murder case or any other heinous or grave crime are threatened and not allowed to depose true facts before the court, the very criminal justice delivery system will be in peril. Therefore, circumstances have to be created so that the witnesses appear before the Court freely without any fear and depose true facts. The prosecution has to take steps to see that justice is done not only to the accused but also to the victims. There is no proper system of looking into the aspects of security of the witnesses and creating confidence in them. The superior police officers should look into these aspects and create separate wing to provide security to the witnesses and victims. Concerned inspectors should be directed to monitor the proceedings till conclusion of the trial. As and when complaints of threatening witnesses or victims are received they should act promptly and create confidence to the victims and witnesses. Criminal Justice delivery system requires that the circumstances have to be created so that the victims appear before the Court with free will. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner who is allegedly repeatedly threatening the victim is not entitled for bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed. However, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsampet, is directed to dispose of the case i.e., Crime No.55 of 2007 of Narsampet P.S. as early as possible preferably within a period of two (2) months and this case i.e., Crime No.178 of 2009 also as early as possible within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 22-10-2009. Dsh. L.R. Copy marked.