Karnataka High Court
Ananda M vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No. 1652 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1652 OF 2025
BETWEEN
ANANDA M,
S/O MUNIRAJU ,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS ,
R/AT BEHIND CHURCH,
DV M COLONY,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL - 562110.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KRISHNEGOWDA M., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA,
STATE BY DEVANAHALLI PS,
RPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE- 560001.
2 . SMT ROOPA,
C/O RAVICHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT: C/O SOUDE MANDI,
MUNISHAMAPPA BUILDING,
GOKARE ROAD,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL-562110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R1,
SMT. B. V. HEMALATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2.)
-2-
CRL.A No. 1652 of 2025
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING TO PASS
AN ORDER OF BAIL ENLARGING THE APPELLANT IN
CR.NO.43/2025 OF DEVANAHALLI POLICE, NOW IN
SPL.C.NO.526/2025, PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK SPECIAL Court-III
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 65(1) OF BNS, U/S 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, U/S
3(1)(W)(i)(ii) OF SC/ST ACT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 28TH OCTOBER, 2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 21st July 2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1302 of 2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS-2023, came to be dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, Devanahalli Police registered a case in Crime No.43 of 2021 against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 65(1) BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)w(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After investigation, the -3- CRL.A No. 1652 of 2025 Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under aforestated sections. The Investigating Officer has arrested the accused and produced him before the Court and the accused was remanded to judicial custody. Bail application was filed under Section 483 of BNSS-2023, which came to be rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of rejection, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. Sri Veeranna G. Tigadi, learned counsel appearing for counsel for the appellant would submit that the investigation is already completed and accused is not required for any further investigation. The appellant was arrested on 04th April, 2025 and till this day, the accused is in judicial custody. In the medical report of the victim, Doctor opines that hymen perineum is intact. The appellant is innocent of the allegations falsely alleged against him. The allegations made against the appellant are without any substance and are made only with an intention to falsely implicate the appellant in the criminal case. The allegations made against the accused will attract only the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO act, which is punishable with only five years of imprisonment. On all these grounds it is sought to allow the appeal.
-4-CRL.A No. 1652 of 2025
4. As against this, Sri R. Rangaswamy, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that there are prima facie materials to attract the offence punishable under alleged commission of offence. At this stage, it cannot be said that the alleged commission of offence is not applicable to the case on hand. Only upon a full-fledged trial, it can be decided that the alleged act of accused come under the provisions of Section 8 of the POCSO Act or under the provisions for the offences alleged against the accused. He would submit that the alleged commission of offence is heinous in nature. On all these grounds, it was sought to dismiss the appeal.
5. Having heard the arguments on both side, the following points would arise for consideration:
1. Whether the appellant has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court?
2. What order?
6. My answer to the above points is as under:
Point No.1: in the negative -5- CRL.A No. 1652 of 2025 Point No.2: as per final order Regarding Point No.1:
7. I have examined the materials placed before this court. the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 65(1) BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)w(i)(ii) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. In Column No.17 of the charge-sheet, it is alleged as under:
"¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î, UÉÆÃRgÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ªÀÄĤ¸ÁéªÀÄ¥Àà ©°ØAUï, ¸ÁQë 01, ¸ÁQë-02 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-04 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQë 04 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwAiÀÄ PÉÆgÀªÀÄ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ, EzÉà zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î, r.«.JªÀiï PÁ¯ÉÆä, ZÀZïð »A¨sÁUÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ PÁ®A £ÀA-12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J-1 DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ UÉÆ®è eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-29 gÀªÀgÀÄ zÀÈrÃPÀj¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQë 01, ¸ÁQë-02 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë 04 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è DgÉÆævÀ£À vÀAzÉ ºÉƸÀzÁV ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖwÛzÀÄÝ D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QUÉ PÉÊ ¸À£É߬ÄAzÀ ºÁAiÀiï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ¨ÁAiÀiï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è Dl DqÀÄwÛgÀĪÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¹ ®ªï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ, DUÀ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q £Á£ÀÄ E£ÀÄß 12 ªÀµÀðzÀ aPÀ̪À¼ÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ, £À£Àß eÁw J¸ï.¹ PÉÆgÀªÀiï eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ, EzɯÁè £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝgÀÆ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CqÀØUÀnÖ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA§gï C£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q vÀ£Àß §½ ªÉƨÉʯï E®èzÀ PÁgÀt vÀ£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA§gï C£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ ªÉĸÉÃeï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ¯ï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, MAzÀÄ ¢£À £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QUÉ ¤£Àß ®ªï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛ£É. DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ªÉƨÉÊ®ß°è ªÉĸÉÃeÁäqÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-02 gÀªÀjUÉ w½zÀÄ, DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ¨ÉÃqÀ, ¤Ã£Éà ªÉĸÉÃeï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ w½¢zÉ, E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ -6- CRL.A No. 1652 of 2025 F jÃw ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ DvÀ¤UÉ §Ä¢Ý ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.04.2025 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 04.00 UÀAmÉUÉ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½îUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀÆÌnAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃVwÛgÀĪÁUÀ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ¸Àé®à zÀÆgÀzÀ°è ¤AwzÀÝ DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CqÀØUÀnÖ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¨Á JAzÀÄ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ¥ÀĸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î mˤßAzÀ UÉÆÃRgÉ UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è F »AzÉ PÀ®Äè, PÁåj £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÉ ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q §gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ, DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ PÉÊ »rzÀÄ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV PÀ®Äè§AqÉUÀ¼À ©¢ÝgÀĪÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV £ÉÆÃAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ §mÉÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©aÑ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄ £ÀqɸÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÀÄÝ, £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QUÉ ¨sÀAiÀĪÁV QgÀÄaPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §Vι, »A¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄ £ÀqɹzÀÄÝ, £ÉÆÃAzÀ ¨Á®Q £ÉÆêÀÅ vÁ¼À¯ÁgÀzÉà eÉÆÃgÁV CvÀÛgÀÆ ©qÀzÉà ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄ £ÀqɹgÀÄvÁÛgÀ£É. EzÀjAzÀ gÀPÀÛ¸ÁæªÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁQë-14 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-18 gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆAiÀÄì¼Á ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è NqÁqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr DgÉÆæ C°èAzÀ NrºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ£É. ¸ÁQë-18 gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀQë¹ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ¸ÁQë-01 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-02 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgɬĹ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ gÀPÀëuÉUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q 12 ªÀµÀðzÀ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ¨Á®Q JAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwAiÀÄ PÉÆgÀªÀiï eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ w½¢zÀÝgÀÄ, £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀĸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV, £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QUÉ EµÀÖE®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄà £ÀqɹgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
8. Birth certificate of the victim reveals that her date of birth as 19th September, 2012. The alleged incident took place on 03rd April 2025. As on the date of alleged commission of offence, the age of the victim was 12 years 6 months and 14 days.
9. The Medico-legal examination report of sexual violence reveals the history of the incident as under:
-7-CRL.A No. 1652 of 2025
"Anand and Rakshitha know each other since 6 months. He stays in front of her house. He had proposed once 2 wks back. She had refused his proposal. On 3/4/2025, she was going to devanahalli at 5.00 pm in a scooter, he stopped her and forcefully dragged her to near Anjaneya temple of Gokhare and made her lie down on bande and removed clothes and kissed her lips and had sexual contact by making her lie down on prone position. He saw the police standing nearby and ranned away. Police took her to Devanahalli Police station."
10. In Column No.22 of this report, it is stated that no external injuries found. There are no signs of use of force. However opinion kept pending. Until the receipt of Forensic Science Laboratory Report, sexual violence cannot be ruled out. The accused-Ananda is also examined by the medical Officer in which the medical officer has opined in local genital examination as "genetalia normally developed; shaft of the penis 6 cm x 2.5 cm in flaccid state, prepuce not; Glans penis: tenderness noted, circumcised, dried blood stains over glans penis tendered blood stains present over shaft of penis. Frenulum of the Penis: tear present over the frenulum at its lower part." A perusal of the medical examination of the victim, shows that there no external injuries. However, on the basis of this medical report, at this stage, it is not just and proper to release the accused on bail. Only after full-fledged trial, the arguments advanced on behalf -8- CRL.A No. 1652 of 2025 of the appellant counsel can be considered. A perusal of the prosecution papers, i.e. statement of victim, complaint and other statement of witnesses, prima facie reveals that the accused has committed alleged offences which are heinous in nature as the victim's age is below 13 years. At this stage, if the accused is released on bail, he may tamper or threaten/induce the victim and it will also affect the society at large. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative. Regarding Point No.2:
For the reasons aforestated and the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn