Court cites potential interference in investigation and gravity of allegations against the police official
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Balaji Medamalli, denied the anticipatory bail petition of B China Mallaiah, a Circle Inspector of Police, in a rape case. The court's decision was issued on May 14, 2026, in Criminal Petition No. 4075 of 2026.
The petitioner, B China Mallaiah, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He was accused of committing rape under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegations were brought forth by a defacto complainant who lodged a complaint on April 29, 2026, asserting that Mallaiah had forcibly raped her while she was alone in her room.
The complaint detailed a long-standing acquaintance between the complainant's family and Mallaiah. The petitioner, who had established a Police Coaching Centre, had become a frequent visitor to the complainant's residence over the years. The complainant alleged that on April 28, 2026, Mallaiah entered her room and committed the heinous act despite her resistance.
Mallaiah's defense, presented by counsel Challa Ajay Kumar, claimed that the accusations were fabricated to tarnish his personal and professional reputation. The defense emphasized Mallaiah's willingness to cooperate with the investigation, noting that statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code had already been recorded.
On the other hand, the Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, highlighting the potential for Mallaiah to interfere with the investigation given his position as an Inspector of Police. The prosecution also presented evidence from the case diary, which included allegations that Mallaiah's son had threatened the complainant.
The court, after examining the evidence and considering the gravity of the allegations, determined that granting anticipatory bail would not be appropriate. Justice Medamalli noted the strong likelihood of the petitioner interfering with the ongoing investigation and influencing the complainant. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, stating that it lacked merit.
The judgment clarified that the observations made were preliminary and specifically pertained to the bail application, without reflecting on the merits of the case itself. The Investigating Agency was urged to proceed with the investigation independently, without being swayed by the court's observations.
This case underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding justice, especially in cases involving serious allegations against law enforcement officials. The ruling also highlights the importance of ensuring that investigations proceed without undue influence from parties involved.
Bottom line:-
Anticipatory bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was denied to a petitioner accused of committing rape under Section 64(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, considering the gravity of the allegations and the likelihood of interference in the investigation.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 64(1)
B China Mallaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2902638
