Mahesh vs State of Karnataka by

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Mar 16, 2026

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1581093

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1581093
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: S Rachaiah
Decided On: Mar 16, 2026
Case Number: CRL.P/16895/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahesh

Respondent

State of Karnataka by

Excerpt

.....old. the respondent-police after completion of investigation, submitted the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.4. heard sri.shreeraj s., learned counsel for sri. t.s.chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and smt.anitha girish n, learned high court government pleader for respondent no.1 and sri. raju n.k., learned counsel for respondent no.2.5. it is the submission of learned counsel for thepetitioner that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences, he has been falsely implicated in this case. he is not aware about the actual age of the victim. in fact, he has been misguided and misdirected that the victim had been -6- completed 18 years. hence, the petitioner went along with her and married her and stayed along with her as husband in the same house. after he coming to know the fact that the victim was minor, he wanted to come back and leave her to her parents house. in the meantime, he was arrested .6. the petitioner is a permanent resident of tallurvaddegere village, soraba taluk. he will abide the conditions imposed in the event of his release on bail. therefore, he may be enlarged bail by imposing suitable conditions. makings of submissions learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.7. learned counsel for respondent no.2 has filed vakalath and submits that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail in the interest of the victim and the child.8. per contra, the learned high court government pleader respondent - state vehemently submitted to reject the bail petition. -7-9. having heard learned counsel for the respectiveparties and on perusal of the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the record that the victim is aged about 18 years 2 months as on the date of she gave her statement before the magistrate and it is a submission of the learned counsel for the respective parties that she gave birth to a child. now, the child is of 3 months and it appears that, it requires care and caution, for the welfare of the.....

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16895 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MAHESH S/O. UJJAPPA YENLEKOPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT TALLUR VADDAGERE VILLAGE, POST ENNEKOPPA VILLAGE, SORAB TALUK, Digitally SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 413 signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA …PETITIONER LAKSHMI Location: High (BY SRI. CHAKRAVARTHY T S.,ADVOCATE) Court of Karnataka AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANAVATTI POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA -2- REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001
2. SMT. INDRAMMA, W/O. NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. HURULI VILLAGE, SORAB TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 413 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP FOR R.1 BY SRI. RAJU N E., ADVOCATE FOR R.2) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON

BAIL IN CR.NO.70/2025 IN ANAVATTI POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA AND NOW SPL.C.NO.284/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, AT SHIVAMOGGA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 64(2)(m), 87, 127(2) OF BNS, 2023 AND SEC. 6 AND 17 OF POCSO ACT 2012 AND SEC. 9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT 2006 -3- OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner who is

arrayed as accused No.1 in Spl.C.No.284/2025 arising out of Crime No.70/2025 pending on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I at Shivamogga for the offences punishable under Section 64(2)(m), 87, 127(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sec. 6 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (POCSO) 2012 and Sec. 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

Factual matrix of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Smt. Indramma lodges a complaint stating that, she is having three children, out of which two are -4-

female and one is male. Her elder daughter is the victim in this case. It is alleged that about six to seven months prior to the date of incident, the petitioner herein used to call her daughter and he was insisting her daughter to love him. It is further alleged that he was threatening her that he would commit murder of all the family members, if she was not willing to love him. Despite warnings issued to the petitioner, he continued to stalk the victim. On 01.04.2025, after having dinner, all the family members went to sleep in the house. On the following day, around 04:00 a.m., the complainant found that her

daughter was found missing. She immediately started searching the whereabouts of her daughter, however she could not get any information regarding the whereabouts of the victim. Therefore, she lodges a complaint before the respondent police seeking for conducting search of the whereabouts of her daughter.

3. The respondent-police after registering the case,

conducted investigation. During investigation, they secured the presence of the victim and arrested the accused. Further, the statement of the victim has been recorded under Section -5-

164 of Cr.P.C. The statement would indicate that after the victim and the petitioner had eloped from their respective houses, they went to the house of Shekhar Gowda and started residing in the said house. On 07.04.2025, it is stated that the petitioner married her and on 12.04.2025, sexual assault had been taken place. On 04.08.2025, she was diagnosed as pregnant. Thereafter, she gave birth to a child. Now, the child is of three months old. The respondent-police after completion of investigation, submitted the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.

4. Heard Sri.Shreeraj S., learned counsel for Sri. T.S.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Anitha Girish N, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Raju N.K., learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences, he has been falsely implicated in this case. he is not aware about the actual age of the victim. In fact, he has been misguided and misdirected that the victim had been -6- completed 18 years. Hence, the petitioner went along with her and married her and stayed along with her as husband in the same house. After he coming to know the fact that the victim was minor, he wanted to come back and leave her to her parents house. In the meantime, he was arrested .

6. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Tallur

Vaddegere Village, Soraba Taluk. He will abide the conditions imposed in the event of his release on bail. Therefore, he may be enlarged bail by imposing suitable conditions. Makings of submissions learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed vakalath and submits that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail in the interest of the victim and the child.

8. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader respondent - State vehemently submitted to reject the bail petition. -7-

9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective

parties and on perusal of the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the record that the victim is aged about 18 years 2 months as on the date of she gave her statement before the Magistrate and it is a submission of the learned counsel for the respective parties that she gave birth to a child. Now, the child is of 3 months and it appears that, it requires care and caution, for the welfare of the child and the victim, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions

10. Hence I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. This Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The petitioner is enlarged on bail in Spl.C.No.284/2025 arising out of Crime No.70/2025 pending on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I at Shivamogga on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) -8- with one surety to the like sum of the satisfaction of the Trial Court. iii. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates. In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2026 Same Parties Mahesh vs State of Karnataka by Same Judge S Rachaiah