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

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. 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

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 zÉÃªÀ£ÀºÀ½î ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À zÉÃªÀ£ÀºÀ½î, UÉÆÃRgÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ªÀÄÄ¤¸ÁéªÀÄ¥Àà ©°ØAUï, ¸ÁQë 01, ¸ÁQë-02 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-04 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQë 04 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwAiÀÄ PÉÆgÀªÀÄ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ, EzÉÃ zÉÃªÀ£ÀºÀ½î, r.«.JªÀiï PÁ¯ÉÆÃ¤, ZÀZïð »A¨sÁUÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄªÀ PÁ®A £ÀA-12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ J-1 DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£ÀÄ UÉÆ®è eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-29 gÀªÀgÀÄ zÀÈrÃPÀj¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQë 01, ¸ÁQë-02 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë 04 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£À vÀAzÉ ºÉÆ¸ÀzÁV ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖwÛzÀÄÝ D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£ÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QUÉ PÉÊ ¸À£Éß¬ÄAzÀ ºÁAiÀiï ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, ¨ÁAiÀiï ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è Dl DqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¹ ®ªï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÄÝ, DUÀ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q £Á£ÀÄ E£ÀÄß 12 ªÀµÀðzÀ aPÀÌªÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É, £À£Àß eÁw J¸ï.¹ PÉÆgÀªÀiï eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉAzÀÄ, EzÉ¯Áè £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÝgÀÆ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CqÀØUÀnÖ ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï £ÀA§gï C£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉÃ½zÁUÀ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q vÀ£Àß §½ ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï E®èzÀ PÁgÀt vÀ£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï £ÀA§gï C£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£ÀÄ ªÉÄ¸ÉÃeï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ¯ï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, MAzÀÄ ¢£À £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QUÉ ¤£Àß ®ªï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½gÀÄvÁÛ£É. DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£ÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ®ß°è ªÉÄ¸ÉÃeÁäqÀÄªÀ «ZÁgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-02 gÀªÀjUÉ w½zÀÄ, DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ¤UÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ¨ÉÃqÀ, ¤Ã£ÉÃ ªÉÄ¸ÉÃeï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ w½¢zÉ, E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ

F jÃw ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ DvÀ¤UÉ §Ä¢Ý ºÉÃ½gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.04.2025 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 04.00 UÀAmÉUÉ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q zÉÃªÀ£ÀºÀ½îUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀÆÌnAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃVwÛgÀÄªÁUÀ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ¸Àé®à zÀÆgÀzÀ°è ¤AwzÀÝ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£ÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CqÀØUÀnÖ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¨Á JAzÀÄ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ¥ÀÄ¸À¯Á¬Ä¹ zÉÃªÀ£ÀºÀ½î mË¤ßAzÀ UÉÆÃRgÉ UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è F »AzÉ PÀ®Äè, PÁåj £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄwÛzÉ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®Q §gÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÁUÀ, DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£ÀÄ PÉÊ »rzÀÄ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV PÀ®Äè§AqÉUÀ¼À ©¢ÝgÀÄªÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV £ÉÆÃAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ §mÉÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©aÑ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄ £ÀqÉ¸À®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÀÄÝ, £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QUÉ ¨sÀAiÀÄªÁV QgÀÄaPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §VÎ¹, »A¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄ £ÀqÉ¹zÀÄÝ, £ÉÆÃAzÀ ¨Á®Q £ÉÆÃªÀÅ vÁ¼À¯ÁgÀzÉÃ eÉÆÃgÁV CvÀÛgÀÆ ©qÀzÉÃ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄ £ÀqÉ¹gÀÄvÁÛgÀ£É. EzÀjAzÀ gÀPÀÛ¸ÁæªÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁQë-14 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-18 gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆAiÀÄì¼Á ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è NqÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr DgÉÆÃ¦ C°èAzÀ NrºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ£É. ¸ÁQë-18 gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀQë¹ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ¸ÁQë-01 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-02 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉ¬Ä¹ £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 ¥ÀÄ¸À¯Á¬Ä¹ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV, £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®QUÉ EµÀÖE®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£ÀÄ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄÃ £ÀqÉ¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ¬ÄAzÀ 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:

"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