Karnataka High Court
Sri Srishanth @ Srikanth @ Appu vs State By Chikkajala P.S on 4 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44484
CRL.A No. 1694 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1694 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
SRI SRISHANTH @ SRIKANTH @ APPU
S/O LATE HARISH
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
R/AT AVATHI VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPUR HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562110.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA P.H., ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE BY CHIKKAJALA P.S.
REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560001.
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
2. MR. RANGANATHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
S/O SUBBANNA
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUTN 47 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR DODDAMMA TEMPLE,
HUNASAMARNAHALLI VILLAGE & POST,
YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE CITY - 562157.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1,
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED: 04.11.2025
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATE 04.06.2025 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.3892/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 87,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44484
CRL.A No. 1694 of 2025
HC-KAR
64(2)(M), 65(1) OF BNS SEC.5(L),6 OF POCSO ACT 2012
UNDER SEC.3(2)(v) OF PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT 1989
PASS BY THE COURT OF HON'BLE COURT OF THE FTSC IV
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND
ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CR.NO.240/2024 REGISTERED BY
CHIKKAJALA P.S. PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE CITY
CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU FTSC-IV.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order
dated 04th June, 2025 passed in Crl. Misc.No.3892 of 2025 by
the FTSC-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Bengaluru and enlarge him on bail in Crime No.240 of 2024
registered by Chikkajala Police station.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the
basis of the complaint filed by Ranganatha, Chikkajala Police
registered Crime No.240 of 2024 against the accused for
commission of offence punishable under Section 87 of BNS-
2023. After investigation, Investigating Officer submitted
charge sheet under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), 87 of BNS-2023
and under Sections 5(L) and 6 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012; and under Section 3(2)(v) of
NC: 2025:KHC:44484
HC-KAR
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Accused was arrested on 06th December,
2024 and was remanded to judicial custody. Till this date,
accused is in judicial custody. Bail application was filed under
Section 483 of BNSS-2023, came to be rejected by the trial
Court on 04th June, 2025. Being aggrieved by the rejection of
bail application, the appellant/accused has preferred this
appeal.
3. Sri Raghavendra P.H., learned counsel appearing
for the appellant/accused would submit that the accused has
not committed any offence as alleged against him. The
Investigating Officer has produced the victim before the
Magistrate for recording statement under Section 183 of BNSS-
2023, in which she has not stated anything against the
accused. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 while
recording statement under Section 183 of BNSS-2023, she has
not deposed anything against this accused. Victim has not
been subjected to medical examination as the victim has
refused to undergo medical examination. Since the evidence of
victim has already been recorded, the question of tampering or
NC: 2025:KHC:44484
HC-KAR
threatening the victim does not arise. The accused is in judicial
custody for nearly ten months now and the accused in ready to
abide to any of the conditions which may be imposed by this
Court. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.
4. As against this, Sri R. Rangaswamy, learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State
would submit that as per the birth certificate, the victim was
minor at the time of alleged incident. PW1 has supported the
prosecution case in her examination-in-chief. There are no
grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
trial Court. On all these grounds, it is sought to dismiss the
appeal.
5. I have examined the materials placed before this
Court. the learned Magistrate, Devanahalli, has recorded the
statement of victim under Section 183 of BNSS-2023 on 06th
January, 2025, which reads as under:
" ²æñÁAvï JA§ÀĪÀªÀgÀÄ E£Áì÷ÖUÁæªÀiï £À°è ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ DVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ ®ªÀ¸ïð DzɪÀÅ. D PÁgÀt¢AzÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è E®èzÉÃ
EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ²æñÁAvï £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. F jÃw
²æñÁAvï £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÁgt, £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ
NC: 2025:KHC:44484
HC-KAR
ZÁ®PÀ£ÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwۢà ÝAiÀÄ, £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JAzÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ
ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ²æñÁAvï £À£ÀUÉ ¤ªÀÄä C¥Àà CªÀÄä gÀªÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀÄ PÉüÀ¨ÉÃqÀ,
£ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß zÀÆgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉý ªÉÆzÀ°UÉ zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½îUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
§AzÀÄ C°èAzÀ DªÀw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DªÀw¬ÄAzÀ PÉÆÃgÀªÀÄAUÀ®zÀ°ègÀĪÀ ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï
JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀ
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æñÁAvï 10 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ® EzÉݪÀÅ. C°èUÉ £À£Àß C¥Àà
CªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. "
6. The victim has not whispered anything against this
accused at the time of recording statement under Section 183
of BNSS-2023. During the cross-examination, at paragraph
No.3 she has clearly admitted that she has not deposed
anything against the accused. Since the evidence of PW1 is
already recorded, the question of threatening or tampering the
prosecution witnesses does not arise.
7. It is submitted that the trial is not concluded.
There are 29 witnesses in the charge-sheet and out of them
only 7 witnesses are examined. It will take much time to
conclude the trial. The age of the appellant/accused is 19
years. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellant and also the inconsistent evidence of PW1 which
is contrary to the statement recorded by the learned Magistrate
on oath, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the
NC: 2025:KHC:44484
HC-KAR
merits of the case, it is just and proper to release the accused
on bail putting him on conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed;
ii) Order dated 04th June, 2025 passed in Crl.
Misc.No.3892 of 2025 by the FTSC-IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Bengaluru, is set aside;
iii) Appellant/accused 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;
iv) Appellant/accused shall not tamper or threaten
the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
v) Appellant/accused shall appear before the trial
Court on all the dates of hearing.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
