Muniswamy vs The State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 1248 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1248 Kant
Judgement Date : 13 February, 2026

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Muniswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                  -1-
                                                                 NC: 2026:KHC:9007
                                                         CRL.P No. 17425 of 2025


                      HC-KAR




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                               BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                       CRIMINAL PETITION No. 17425 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /
                                             483(BNSS))


                      BETWEEN:

                      MUNISWAMY
                      S/O ANJANAPPA
                      AGE ABOUT 27 YEARS
                      R/AT SALANTRI PALYA
                      KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK
                      TUMKURU DISTRICT-01


                                                                     ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI PRATHEEP K.C, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:


Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA       1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH              REP. BY CHANNARAYAPATNA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                   POLICE STATION
                            HASSAN DISTRICT
                            REP. BY IT STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                            HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                            BENGALURU-560 001.

                      2.    MANJULA
                            W/O LATE MANJEGOWDA
                            AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
                            R/AT KATTARIGHATTA KOPPALU
                            DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2026:KHC:9007
                                    CRL.P No. 17425 of 2025


HC-KAR




    CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
    HASSAN -01
                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1;
    R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C
(FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
SPL.C.No.422/2025 (CRIME No.168/2025) PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE HON'BLE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND FTSC-I AT HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 137(2),65(1),127(3),127(4) OF BNS AND
SECTIONS 4 & 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 9 AND 10 OF
PROHIBITION     OF    CHILD     MARRIAGE    ACT    BY
CHANNARAYAPATNA POLICE.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR


                         ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section

483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in SC No.422/2025

(Crime No.168/2025 of Channarayapatna Rural Police

Station) pending on the file of Additional District and

Sessions Judge and FTSC-1, Hassan, registered for

offences under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 127(3), 127(4) of

BNS, Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and under Section 9

and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

NC: 2026:KHC:9007

HC-KAR

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State. Inspite of service

of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and

unrepresented.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

that the statement of the victim girl has been recorded

under Section 183 of BNSS, twice one on 11.09.2025 and

another on 10.10.2025. In the statement on 11.09.2025,

she has alleged sexual intercourse by both accused Nos.1

and 2. In the statement recorded on 10.10.2025, she has

alleged sexual intercourse by petitioner/accused No.1 and

also marriage by petitioner with her by tying the Taali. The

said allegation of marriage has not been stated in her

statement recorded on 11.09.2025. The victim girl has not

alleged any sexual intercourse by this petitioner in the

history given by her before the Doctor at the time of her

examination. The said allegation is against accused No.2.

Considering the above aspect, there are contradictions in

the statements of the victim girl. Victim girl is aged 17

NC: 2026:KHC:9007

HC-KAR

years and she is aware of the consequences of her acts.

The petitioner is in judicial custody since 13.09.2025 and

as the charge sheet is filed, he is not required for further

custodial interrogation. With this he prayed to allow the

petition.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent/State

would contend that petitioner took the victim girl to

Bangalore and had sexual intercourse with her. The victim

girl has stated the acts of this petitioner of having sexual

intercourse with her in her both statements recorded

under Section 183 of the BNSS. The petitioner, even

knowing that the victim girl is minor, has married her and

had forcible sexual intercourse with her. The charge sheet

material show prima-facie case against the petitioner for

offences alleged against him. With this he prayed to reject

the petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has

perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on

record.

NC: 2026:KHC:9007

HC-KAR

6. As per charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is

that CW.2 and CW.3 are friends. CW.2 is the victim girl

and CW.3 is the wife of accused No.2. It is alleged that

accused No.2 had introduced the petitioner with CW.2 and

proposed their marriage and took the victim girl to a

temple wherein accused No.1 has married CW.2 and

thereafter had sexual intercourse on her on two dates. The

statement of the victim girl has been recorded under

Section 183 of BNSS for two times, one on 11.09.2025

and another on 10.10.2025. In the statement recorded on

11.09.2025, the victim has not alleged any marriage by

this petitioner with her. But she has alleged of both

accused Nos.1 and 2 committing sexual intercourse on

her. The victim girl in her statement recorded on

10.10.2025 has not made any allegation against accused

No.2 and she has alleged that this petitioner has married

her and had sexual intercourse with her. Considering the

two statements, there are contradictory statements by the

victim girl. The victim girl in the history at the time of her

NC: 2026:KHC:9007

HC-KAR

examination by the doctor has not alleged anything

against this petitioner. The allegation made by her is

against accused No.2. Considering the above aspects,

whether the petitioner has committed offences alleged

against him is a matter of trial. The petitioner is in judicial

custody since 13.09.2025 and as the charge sheet is filed,

he is not required for further custodial interrogation. There

are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner.

7. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has

made out case for grant of bail with conditions. In the

result, the following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted bail in

S.C.No.422/2025 (Crime No.168/2025 of

Channarayapatna Rural Police Station) pending on the file

of Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-1,

Hassan, subject to following conditions: