Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4662 OF 2026 BETWEEN: VIKRAM S., S/O SELVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, PRESENT ADDRESS R/AT 497, 14TH CROSS, LR NAGAR, VIVEKANAGAR POST, BANGALORE CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 047. PERMANENT ADDRESS AYANURU VILLAGE, PILIYAAR KOYLU TERU, THIRUKOYLURU DIST, TIRUNELVELI CITY, TAMILNADU - 627 001. Digitally …PETITIONER signed by HEMALATHA J (BY SRI. RANGANATHA T.R., ADVOCATE) Location: HIGH COURT AND: OF KARNATAKA
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SUBRAMANYPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFF/AT HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SMT.SHWETHA R, W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, -2- RESIDING AT 19, 4TH CROSS, GUMAYAIAH LAYOUT, CHIKKAKALASANDARA, SUBRAMAYA POST, BENGALURU - 560 061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1; SRI.GOKUL H.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL U/S 483 OF THE CODE OF BNSS, 2023, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.406/2025 REGISTERED BY SUBRAMANYAPURA P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 12, 6, 5, 11(iv) OF POCSO ACT, 2012, U/S 127(4), 137(2), 64, 78, 87 OF BNS, 2023, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-III, BENGALURU CITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS) seeking regular bail in Crime No.406/2025 registered by the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 127(4), 64, 78 and 87 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 5, 6, 11(iv) and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. -3-
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was that the mother of the complainant had lodged a complaint alleging
that her daughter was missing from 12.11.2025. Later, the daughter of the complainant appeared before the police and gave a further statement stating that she had befriended the
petitioner who expressed his desire to marry her. On 12.11.2025, the petitioner took her to a hotel in Shanthinagar where he had sexual intercourse with her against her wish. Based on this, the respondent conducted further investigation and submitted a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 127(4), 64, 78 and 87 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 5, 6, 11(4) and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, The petitioner filed a petition for enlarging him on bail which was rejected by the trial Court in terms of an order dated 10.02.2026. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the complainant claims that she was sexually assaulted by the petitioner on 12.11.2025, she appeared before the
police on 21.11.2025 and recorded a further statement accusing the petitioner of rape. He therefore contends that this generates doubt about the veracity of allegations made against -4- the petitioner. He also contends that the medical examination of the complainant showed that there were no injuries and that there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. He therefore submits that the petitioner is unnecessarily roped into the case and a false case is filed against him.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
for the respondent - State submitted that the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution and has recorded the statement reiterating the accusations against the petitioner. She also submits that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for enlargement on bail. Besides, she contends that the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years and since there is a prima facie case against the petitioner, no indulgence be shown to the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand submits that the respondent No.2 has no objection for releasing the petitioner on bail. -5-
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
7. A perusal of the further statement of the
complainant recorded by the respondent-police would indicate that the petitioner allegedly had forcible sexual intercourse with the daughter of complainant on 12.11.2025. However, the
further statement of the complainant was recorded on 21.11.2025. There is no reason mentioned as to why the further statement was belatedly recorded. The complainant claimed that she came to know about the petitioner only when she had gone to attend her grandfather's funeral. However, it is claimed that the petitioner is the nephew of the complainant and both of them knew each other. It is also claimed by the petitioner that the victim girl had ran away from the house and petitioner was the one who counselled the victim girl to go back her parents. In that view of the matter, there appears to be something more than what meets the eye and hence, it is not appropriate to keep the petitioner behind the bars.
-6-
8. In that view of the matter, the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed. ii) The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.406/2025 registered by the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 127(4), 64, 78 and 87 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 5, 6, 11(4) and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, subject to he complying the following conditions: a. He shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with a solvent surety for the likesum and to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. b. He shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted by the Court. c. He shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of commission of which he is suspected and he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to -7- dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. d. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, it is open for the Investigating Officer / prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail in which event the appropriate Court shall deal with the said application in accordance with law.
e. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court. f. He shall co-operate with the investigating officer and appear before him whenever called upon to do so. g. If he violates any of the above, liberty is reserved to seek cancellation of the order of bail granted by this Court. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54