Karnataka High Court
Sri Bheemaraj B vs State Of Karnataka on 27 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49568
CRL.A No. 2051 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2051 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
SRI BHEEMARAJ B.
S/O. LATE BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PRASHANTH NAGAR,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN-562101.
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT:
GEJJALANATHA VILLAGE,
KOLLEGALA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571444.
(IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LOKESH R., ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH COURT
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
OF KARNATAKA
CHIKKABALLAPURA WOMEN
POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. VICTIM
D/O ANANDHKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT NBC PG,
NEAR MARALUSIDDESHWARA TEMPLE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49568
CRL.A No. 2051 of 2025
HC-KAR
ALSO AT KOTE.
#197/2, WARD NO.4,
KODHANDARAMA SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD,
GOWRIBIDANURU TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPURA,
PIN CODE - 562108.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1,
SMT. DEEPIKA HUNGENAHALLY, ADV. FOR R2.)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2025
REJECTING THE BAIL APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT IN
SPL.S.C.NO.109/2025 (CR.NO.63/2025) FOR OFFENCES P/U/S.
64, 351(2) OF BNSS, 2023 AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(v) OF
SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES AMENDMENT) ACT
2015, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT CHIKKABALLAPURA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal by the applicant is against the order
dated 12th September 2025 passed in Spl.SC No.109 of 2025,
by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura
for short "the trial Court").
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the
basis of complaint filed by victim, Chikkaballapura Women
Police Station filed case in Crime No.63 of 2025 for offence
NC: 2025:KHC:49568
HC-KAR
punishable under sections 64, 351(2) of BNS and sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The
investigating officer arrested the accused and produced before
the court and he was recommended to judicial custody. After
investigation, investigating officer submitted charge-sheet
against the accused for commission of offences punishable
under sections 64, 351(2) of BNS and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The accused had
filed application under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 for grant of
regular bail. The same came to be rejected. Being aggrieved
by the rejection of bail application, the appellant has preferred
this appeal.
3. Smt. Deepika Hungenahalli, learned Counsel for
respondent No.2 has filed statement of objections.
4. Shri Lokesh R, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant would submit that appellant has not committed any
offence as alleged by the prosecution. There is no forcible
sexual assault on the victim as alleged by the prosecution. The
age of 22 years. She is a B.Sc. graduate. There is a delay of
NC: 2025:KHC:49568
HC-KAR
62 days in filing the complaint which is not properly explained
by the prosecution. The complainant is well-educated and also
an UPSC aspirant who had sufficient legal awareness and
opportunity to immediately report the incident, but had
deliberately delayed the lodging of complaint, which casts
serious doubt on the authenticity of the claim made by the
complainant. The offences are not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. Investigation is already completed.
Accused is not required for further investigation. Accused is in
judicial custody for more than four months and the accused is
ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this court. On all
these grounds, it is sought for allowing the appeal. To
substantiate his arguments, he has relied on the following
judgments:
(1). PRAVEEN V. SHO, DODDABALLAPURA POLICE
AND ANOTHER - CRL.APPEAL NO.1809 OF 2025
DECIDED ON 10TH NOV 2025;
(2). RUPESH THUKARAM KONDHELKAR V. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER - BAIL
APPLICATION NO.4504 OF 2024 DECIDED ON
23RD APRIL, 2025;
NC: 2025:KHC:49568
HC-KAR
(3). ANKITH RAJ V. SATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND
OTHERS - 2025 SCC ONLINE DEL.5894;
(4). JUNEDH PASHA @ REEHAL V. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER RENDERED IN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13313 OF 2025
DECIDED ON 12TH NOV 2025;
(5). SAMPRAS A V. STATE OF KARNATAKA
RENDERED IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10497
OF 2024 DECIDED ON 14TH OCTOBER, 2024;
(6). SAMPRAS ANTHONY V. STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND ANOTHER RENDERED IN WRIT PETITION
NO.31144 OF 2024 DECIDED ON 25TH OCT
2025;
(7). NATHU V. STATE THROUGH MR. SUNIL KUMAR
GAUTAM APP FOR STATE CRL.A. 242 OF 2023
AND CRL.M.(BAIL) 2172 F 2024 DT. 20TH
MARCH 2025.
5. As against this, Smt. Deepa Hunagenahalli, learned
Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri B Lakshman,
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
respondent-State, have reiterated the averments made in the
statement of objections. Learned High Court Government
Pleader, would further submit that now the investigating officer
NC: 2025:KHC:49568
HC-KAR
has received the DNA report which reveals that the accused is
the biological father of the fetus. In support of her contentions,
the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied on the
following decisions:
(1). SYED PARVEEZ MUSHRAFF V. STATE OF
KARNATAKA BY MAHADEVAPURA PS - 2025 SCC
ONLINE KAR 19567;
(2). RAVI V. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND
ANOTHER - 2024 SCC ONLINE Del 106.
6. I have examined the materials place before this
court. On the basis of complaint filed by the complainant,
Chikkaballapura Women, police registered a case in Crime
No.25 of 2025 against the accused for offence punishable under
Sections 64, 351(2) of BNS and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. The alleged incident
took place on 30th April 2025. Complaint came to be filed on
30th June 2025. There is a considerable delay in filing the
complaint. Victim is aged about 22 years and she is well
educated as well as UPSC aspirant. The investigation is already
completed and the accused is not required for further
investigation. The offence under section 64 of BNSS 2023,
NC: 2025:KHC:49568
HC-KAR
specifies the punishment for not less than ten years extending
upto to life imprisonment, along with fine. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity
of offence and the age of the victim, I am of the considered
opinion that it is just proper to allow the appeal. Accordingly, I
pass the following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed;
ii. Order dated 12th September 2025 passed in
Spl.SC No.109 of 2025 by the I Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura is set
aside. Consequently, the Application filed by
the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023
is allowed on following conditions:
a. The appellant shall be released on bail
upon executing a self-bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the trial
Court;
NC: 2025:KHC:49568
HC-KAR
b. Appellant shall not tamper or threaten the
prosecution witnesses in any manner;
c. Appellant shall appear before the trial
Court on all date of hearing.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
