Kampalle Sailaja

1 of 4

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

POCSO ACT,2012:: NELLORE.

(COURT OF SESSION: NELLORE DIVISION:NELLORE)

Present: MS.SAILAJA KAMPALLE

Special Judge for Speedy Trial Offences under POCSO Act-2012, NELLORE.

****

Friday, this the Fifteen (15th) day of May 2026.

Crl.M.P.No. 360 of 2026.

Crime No.36 of 2026 of Kota police station. Between: Devalla @ Devandla Manikanta, S/o.Devalla @ Devandla Chandraiah, aged about 18 years, R/o.YSR Colony, Jangamaheswara Puram village,

Gurajala Mandal, Palnadu District. ... Petitioner/Accused .

And: State Represented by Sub Inspector of POlice, Kota Police Station.

... Respondent/complainant.

This petition is coming on 12.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Eragadindla Venkateswarlu, Dr.Samadi Suresh Babu, Adike Supriya and Sri Irla Malyadri Advocates for the petitioner/Accused and of Sri D.Chandra Sekhar, Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant and upon hearing both sides, this Court is having stood over for consideration till this date and this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This bail application is filed under Section 483 BNSS to enlarge petitioner/Accused on regular bail in Crime No.36/2026 of Kota Police Station 2 of 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 65 (i), 127 (3), 137 (2) BNS, Section 5

(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3 (2) (v) of SCs & STs Act.

2.The brief case of the prosecution is that the accused acquainted with victim girl, who belongs to ST community through instagram app in the name of love and visited village of victim girl and induced victim girl with deceitful words of accused and kidnapped victim girl and taken her to

Jangalamaheswarapuram village, Gurajala Mandal, there wrongfully confined victim girl in the absence of his parents and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault repeatedly and initially this case was registered under the head of girl missing and later after tracing of victim girl, the section of law was altered. Hence, the case of prosecution.

3.Notice given to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, who opposed the bail application.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is falsely implicated in this case on the false allegations levelled against him by the defacto complainant. As a matter of fact, petitioner and the victim girl were known to each other and they have friendly terms and due to quarrel with the parents of victim girl, she voluntarily left her house and came to the residence of petitioner on her own accord and petitioner neither induced or coerced or 3 of 4 abducted victim girl at any point of time and further victim girl stayed for short duration and voluntarily returned to her home, as such there was no offence was committed by the petitioner/accused and learned counsel for petitioner/accused further submitted that the concerned police illegally detained petitioner from 22.03.2026 to 14.04.2026 without being produced

before the concerned magistrate within stipulated time for judicial remand

purpose and learned counsel for petitioner/accused further submitted that petitioner had fixed abode and fleeing from justice does not arise and petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and willing to obey the conditions if any as imposed by the court while granting regular bail to the petitioner/accused and prayed to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

5.The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application on the ground that the investigation in this case is still pending.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner/accused can be enlarged on regular bail U/sec.483 BNSS or not? Point:-

7.Perused the C.D file. As seen from the case diary file, it is clear that it is the case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault repeatedly on minor victim girl, who belongs to ST community. Further it is clear from the record 4 of 4 that though investigation agency had examined 9 witnesses so far, still the investigation is pending for conduct of potency test on the accused and to get final opinion from the concerned doctors and also to obtain caste certificate of accused from the concerned Tahsildhar. Therefore, by considering the gravity of the offence and stage of investigation in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner/accused. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

8.In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III,transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 15 th day of May 2026.

Sd/- Sailaja Kampalle,

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

under POCSO Act, 2012, Nellore. Copies to—

1) The Judicial Magistrate of I Class Kota.

2) The Special Public Prosecutor, Special Court for speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Nellore.

3) The Station House officer, Kota Police station.

4) Sri Eragadindla Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused .

// True Copy //

Sd/-XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Chief Administrative Officer, Court of Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, 2012, Nellore.

1 of 3

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

POCSO ACT,2012:: NELLORE.

(COURT OF SESSION: NELLORE DIVISION:NELLORE)

Present: MS.SAILAJA KAMPALLE

Special Judge for Speedy Trial Offences under POCSO Act-2012, NELLORE.

****

Thursday, this the Fourteen (14th) day of May 2026.

Crl.M.P.No. 364 of 2026.

Crime No.34 of 2026 of Muthukur police station. Between: Talapala Vasu. S/o.Chenchaiah, aged about 26 years, R/o.Utukuru village,

Vidavalur Mandal.... Petitioner/Accused No.3.

And: State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Muthukur Police Station.

... Respondent/complainant.

This petition is coming on 11.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.V.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused No.3 and of Sri D.Chandra Sekhar, Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant and upon hearing both sides, this Court is having stood over for consideration till this date and this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This bail application is filed under Section 483 BNSS to enlarge petitioner/Accused No.3 on regular bail in Crime No.34/2026 of Muthukur Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 96 r/w 3 (5) BNS and 11 r/w 12 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2 of 3

2.The brief case of the prosecution is that the the accused No.1 acquainted with victim girl through instagram app and taking advantage of the same demanded victim girl to love him and when victim girl blocked the phone number of accused No.1, he bore grudge against the victim girl and with the aid of accused No.2 to 4 came to the house of victim girl and with the promise of accused No.2 to 4 for marriage of victim girl with accused No.1, victim girl believing their words followed accused No.1 to 4 on the motor cycle and they taken victim girl to the fields of Yallayapalem village of Kodvaluru mandal and there when victim girl cried, left away there and went away. Initially basing on the report of complainant/Adduri Sravani a case was registered under the head of girl missing and later after tracing of victim girl the section of law was altered. Hence, the case of prosecution.

3.Notice given to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, who opposed the bail application.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is figured as accused No.3 in this crime and he is innocent and he is falsely implicated in this crime. In fact, the petitioner hails from respectable family and that petitioner had good character and he has no such attitude as alleged by the defacto complainant.

(i).The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there are some petty disputes between the respective families of petitioner and defacto complainant and hence petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel further submitted that petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient sureties and willing to obey the conditions if any as imposed by this Court while granting regular bail to the petitioner and prayed to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

3 of 3

5.The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application as the investigation in this case is still pending.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner/accused No.3 can be enlarged on regular bail U/sec.483 BNSS or not? Point:-

7.Perused the C.D file. As seen from the case diary file, it is clear that it is the case of kidnap of minor girl with false promise of marriage of victim girl with accused No.1. Further it is clear from the case diary file that investigation in this case is still pending for examining some more witnesses and to record statement of victim girl under Section 183 BNSS. Therefore, by considering the pending stage of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner/accused No.3. Accordingly this petition is dismissed.

8.In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III,transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 14 th day of May 2026.

Sd/- Sailaja Kampalle,

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

under POCSO Act, 2012, Nellore. Copies to—

1) The Judicial Magistrate of I Class (For Railways), Nellore.

2) The Special Public Prosecutor, Special Court for speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Nellore.

3) The Station House officer, Muthukur Police station.

4) Sri KV.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused No.3.

// True copy //

Sd/-XXXXXXXX

Chief Administrative Officer, Court of Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, 2012, Nellore.

1 of 3

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

POCSO ACT,2012:: NELLORE.

(COURT OF SESSION: NELLORE DIVISION:NELLORE)

Present: MS.SAILAJA KAMPALLE

Special Judge for Speedy Trial Offences under POCSO Act-2012, NELLORE.

****

Thursday, this the Fourteen (14th) day of May 2026.

Crl.M.P.No. 363 of 2026.

Crime No.73 of 2026 of Naidupet Urban police station. Between: Pigilam Harshavardhan, S/o.Venkata Ramanaiah, aged about 19 years, D.No.1-5-90/3, Rajaka Colony, Naidupet Town, presently residing at 3rd Street, Rajagopalapuram, Naidupet,

Tirupati District-524126. ... Petitioner/Accused .

And: State Represented by Station House Officer, Naidupet Urban Police Station.

... Respondent/complainant.

This petition is coming on 11.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Panabaka Ganga Raju Advocates for the petitioner/Accused and ofSri D.Chandra Sekhar,Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant and upon hearing both sides, this Court is having stood over for consideration till this date and this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is a 2nd bail application is filed under Section 483 BNSS to enlarge petitioner/Accused on regular bail in Crime No.73/2026 of Naidupet Urban Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 65 (i), 140 (3), 127 (2) BNS and Section 3 (a) r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2 of 3

2.The brief case of the prosecution is that the accused acquainted with victim girl and lured her and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on victim girl at his house on 07.01.2026 and further with the deceitful words of accused, he taken victim girl to Hyderabad and wrongfully confined her and later taken her to Naidupet and left her at her home and initially this case was registered under the head of girl missing and later after tracing of victim girl, the section of law was altered. Hence, the case of prosecution.

3.Notice given to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, who opposed the bail application.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is falsely implicated in this case on the basis of false allegations. In fact, petitioner/accused is innocent person and never committed offences as levelled against him and learned counsel for petitioner/accused further submitted that as a matter of fact, petitioner/accused is a student and hence if petitioner/accused continued in the judicial custody, the education of petitioner/accused will be spoiled and further in this case investigation is almost completed and material witnesses were examined including victim girl and prayed to grant regular bail to the petitioner/accused.

5.The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application on the ground that the investigation in this case is still pending.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner/accused can be enlarged on regular bail U/sec.483 BNSS or not? Point:-

7.Perused the C.D file. As seen from the case diary file, it is clear that it is the case of penetrative sexual assault on minor victim girl and in this case investigation is still pending for conducting potency test of the accused and also 3 of 3 for recording statement of victim girl under Section 183 BNSS and also for obtaining regional forensic science laboratory opinion on the seized material objects. Therefore, by considering the gravity of the offence and part of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner/accused. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

8.In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III,transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 14 th day of May 2026.

Sd/- Sailaja Kampalle,

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

under POCSO Act, 2012, Nellore. Copies to—

1) The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Naidupet.

2) The Special Public Prosecutor, Special Court for speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Nellore.

3) The Station House officer, Naidupet Urban Police station.

4) Sri Panabaka Ganga Raju, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused .

// True Copy //

Sd/-XXXXXXXXXXX

Chief Administrative Officer, Court of Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, 2012, Nellore.

:-1:-

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER POCSO ACT :: NELLORE.

(COURT OF SESSION: NELLORE DIVISION: NELLORE)

Present: Ms.SAILAJA KAMPALLE,

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences Under Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, Nellore.

Monday, this the 18th day of May 2026.

CRL.M.P.No. 368/2026.

Cr.No.55/2026 of Indukurpeta Police Station.

Between: State represented by Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural. … Petitioner/Complainant. And: Thalapala @ Thapala Venkata Subbaiah @ Mani. … Respondent/Accused.

This petition is coming on 15.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence ofSri D.Chandra Sekhar, Special Public Prosecutor for petitioner/complainant and notice given to the respondent/accused and upon hearing, this Court is having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 52 BNSS in Crime No.55/2026 of Indukurpet Police station for the offences punishable under sections 64 (2) (f) (m), 65 (2) BNS and section 5 (m) (n) (l) (j) (ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 praying this Court to direct the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore to forward the accused to the Medical Officer concerned, to conduct potency test and for issuance of potency certificate for further investigation.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that: The accused being brother-in-law of victim girl committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault repeatedly on victim girl, who was aged about 11 years as on the date of offence and made the victim girl as a pregnant. Basing on the report of father of victim girl by name Odalaiah, this case has been registered against the accused.

3.Notice given to the accused. No objections are filed by the accused for conducting potency test on him. Hence, it is treated as no objections from his side.

:-2:-

4.The learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that it is a case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault repeatedly by the accused towards victim girl and accused is no other than brother-in-law of victim girl and conduct of potency test on the accused is just and necessary and prays to allow the petition.

5.Heard Learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant records.

6. Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether there are any grounds to allow the petition to conduct potency test on the accused or not?”

7. P O I N T: It is not in dispute that accused is in judicial remand. In view of the above circumstances as pleaded by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in procedural contexts, the conduct of potency test on the accused is just and necessary for the purpose of further investigation. Hence, under the above circumstances, this petition is allowed.

8. In the result, this petition is allowed. The Professor and H.O.D., Department of Forensic Medicine, A.C.S.R. Government Medical College and Hospital, Nellore, is directed to conduct potency test on the accused, on production of accused from Central Prison, Nellore through proper escort and to submit report to this Court. Further, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore is directed to handover the accused to the Escort party of Indukurpet police station so as to enable them to take the accused to A.C.S.R. Government Medical College and Hospital, Nellore, for the purpose of conducting potency test and for issuance of potency certificate. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18 th day of May 2026.

Sd/- Sailaja Kampalle,

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER POCSO ACT, NELLORE.

Copies to :

1. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore.

2. The Professor and H.O.D., Department of Forensic Medicine, A.C.S.R. Government Medical College and Hospital, Nellore.

3. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural.

// True copy //

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxx

Chief Administrative Officer, Court of Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Nellore.

:-1:-

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER POCSO ACT :: NELLORE.

(COURT OF SESSION: NELLORE DIVISION: NELLORE)

Present: Ms.SAILAJA KAMPALLE,

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences Under Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, Nellore.

Monday, this the 18th day of May 2026.

CRL.M.P.No. 368/2026.

Cr.No.55/2026 of Indukurpeta Police Station.

Between: State represented by Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural. … Petitioner/Complainant. And: Thalapala @ Thapala Venkata Subbaiah @ Mani. … Respondent/Accused.

This petition is coming on 15.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence ofSri D.Chandra Sekhar, Special Public Prosecutor for petitioner/complainant and notice given to the respondent/accused and upon hearing, this Court is having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 52 BNSS in Crime No.55/2026 of Indukurpet Police station for the offences punishable under sections 64 (2) (f) (m), 65 (2) BNS and section 5 (m) (n) (l) (j) (ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 praying this Court to direct the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore to forward the accused to the Medical Officer concerned, to conduct potency test and for issuance of potency certificate for further investigation.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that: The accused being brother-in-law of victim girl committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault repeatedly on victim girl, who was aged about 11 years as on the date of offence and made the victim girl as a pregnant. Basing on the report of father of victim girl by name Odalaiah, this case has been registered against the accused.

3.Notice given to the accused. No objections are filed by the accused for conducting potency test on him. Hence, it is treated as no objections from his side.

:-2:-

4.The learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that it is a case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault repeatedly by the accused towards victim girl and accused is no other than brother-in-law of victim girl and conduct of potency test on the accused is just and necessary and prays to allow the petition.

5.Heard Learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant records.

6. Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether there are any grounds to allow the petition to conduct potency test on the accused or not?”

7. P O I N T: It is not in dispute that accused is in judicial remand. In view of the above circumstances as pleaded by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in procedural contexts, the conduct of potency test on the accused is just and necessary for the purpose of further investigation. Hence, under the above circumstances, this petition is allowed.

8. In the result, this petition is allowed. The Professor and H.O.D., Department of Forensic Medicine, A.C.S.R. Government Medical College and Hospital, Nellore, is directed to conduct potency test on the accused, on production of accused from Central Prison, Nellore through proper escort and to submit report to this Court. Further, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore is directed to handover the accused to the Escort party of Indukurpet police station so as to enable them to take the accused to A.C.S.R. Government Medical College and Hospital, Nellore, for the purpose of conducting potency test and for issuance of potency certificate. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18 th day of May 2026.

Sd/- Sailaja Kampalle,

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER POCSO ACT, NELLORE.

Copies to :

1. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore.

2. The Professor and H.O.D., Department of Forensic Medicine, A.C.S.R. Government Medical College and Hospital, Nellore.

3. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural.

// True copy //

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxx

Chief Administrative Officer, Court of Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, Nellore.