Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh @ Dhanu vs State By Kudur Police on 20 March, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11626
CRL.A No. 40 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. VENKATESH @ DHANU
S/O MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
R/AT KULUME KEMPALINGANAHALLI
VILLAGE, SONDEKOPPA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL-562 123.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VINOD N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY KUDUR POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
Digitally signed
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
by DEVIKA M HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH BANGALORE - 560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. GIRIJA
W/O VENKATESH R.S.,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT RANGENAHALLI
SOLURU HOBLI
RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RANGANATHA K., ADVOCATE FOR R2 - [ABSENT])
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11626
CRL.A No. 40 of 2025
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)
(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER THAT IS ACCUSED ON BAIL IN
SPL.C.NO.108/2024 THAT IS CRIME NO.134/2024, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, RAMANAGARA
REGISTERED BY THE KUDURU P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 363 OF IPC AND SECTION 12 OF
POCSO ACT 2012 AND SECTION 3(2)(v)a OF SC/ST (PA)
AMENDMENT ACT 2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned HCGP for
respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The factual matrix of the case of prosecution is that
C.W.2 victim girl was minor daughter of C.Ws.1 and 3 and both
the accused as well as victim girl were loving each other. On
30.04.2024 at about 11.00 a.m. in the morning, secured C.W.2
minor victim-girl in the outskirts of the Village and then
kidnapped by taking her on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-52-R-
5089 belonging to C.W.8 and took her to a rented house of
C.Ws.5 and 6 giving the false information that C.W.2 as his
younger sister having come for spending college vacation
holidays and from 05.05.2024 to 07.05.2024 retained in his
NC: 2025:KHC:11626
house with an intention to sexually assault and harass her and
thereby touched her body parts in the sexual mature, knowing
fully well that complainant belongs to Hindu Aadi Karnataka
Sub-caste and committed the offence punishable under Section
363 IPC, Section 12 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (PA) Amendment Act, 2015.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that there is no specific allegation, except the allegation that he
took her and pretended that she is his sister and even in the
164 statement before the learned Magistrate also, in order to
attract offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act, nothing is
stated by the victim. Hence, ingredients of the offence under
Section 363 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act do not attract.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-
State would contend that in 164 statement, the victim says that
Police have recorded the statement of the victim and she says
that she was taken to different house till completion of age of
18 since she was minor and such statement was made by the
victim.
NC: 2025:KHC:11626
5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-State and having
perused the contents of statement of victim recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., though nothing is stated, invoked offence
under Section 363 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act. The
material discloses that both of them were loving each other and
the accused taken her to house of C.Ws.5 and 6, wherein the
accused pretended her as his younger sister and no allegation
of sexual assault. Having taken note of factual aspects of the
case and considering the material on record, it is a fit case for
granting bail invoking the discretion and whether the offences
invoked against the appellant attracts or not i.e., offence under
Section 363 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act to be considered
at the time of trial and prima facie, the material does not
disclose the ingredients of offence under Section 12 of POCSO
Act. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for bail, subject to
imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the
interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appellant shall execute personal a bond
for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
NC: 2025:KHC:11626
only) with one surety for the like-sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The appellant shall not indulge in tampering
the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The appellant shall appear before the
jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing
dates, unless exempted by the Court for any
genuine cause.
(iv) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction
of the Trial Court without prior permission of
the Court, till the case registered against him
is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
