[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shubham Shukla vs State By Bagalagunte Ps on 24 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16625
CRL.P No. 1029 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1029 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHUBHAM SHUKLA,
S/O DINESH KUMAR SHUKLA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/A NO.00 MOHADDINPUR (TAKTHA)
POST-PALI, SAHJANWA, GORAKPUR DISTRICT,
UTTAR PRADESH-273 209.
PRESENTLY R/A NO.501,
Digitally BEHIND AYAPPA CHOULTRY
signed by GREEN LAND APARTMENT,
SREEDHARAN
BANGALORE OFFICERS MODEL COLONY,
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI T DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057.
Location: High ...PETITIONER
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. G M SHARATHKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY BAGALAGUNTE PS
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16625
CRL.P No. 1029 of 2026
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. VARSHA RAVAT
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/A 69, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
NEAR JAIN TEMPLE, T DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 057
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI HIRAN KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483
BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED ON
REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.209/2026 ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.510/2025 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE HONBLE ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-2, BENGALURU CITY
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 5(L) AND 6 OF POCSO ACT 2012
AND SEC. 376 OF IPC, REGISTERED BY BAGALAGUNTE P.S IN
THE ABOVE CASE.
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDRES, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:16625
CRL.P No. 1029 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner, who is the sole accused, is before this
Court seeking for grant of regular bail in Special Case
No.209/2026 pending on the file of learned Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-2, Bengaluru, arising
out of Crime No.510/2025 filed by respondent / police for
offences under Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short
'POCSO Act') and Section 376(2)(n) and 506 of Indian
Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
Brief facts of the case:
2. The case of the prosecution is that, a complaint came to
be registered by the complainant stating that, her
younger sister had been sexually assaulted by the
petitioner by threatening her at gunpoint etc., It is
further stated that the petitioner was residing in the place
where her sister was going for studies. It is stated that
the petitioner had threatened her sister by showing a
gun. In the year 2023, it is alleged that, he had
committed sexual assault on her several times and
NC: 2026:KHC:16625
HC-KAR
thereafter, after a lapse of 2½ years, a complaint came
to be registered against the petitioner belatedly, citing
the reason that, as the petitioner is a rowdy-sheeter and
he showed a gun and threatened the victim with dire
consequences, delay has been caused to lodge the said
complaint.
3. Based on the said complaint, the respondent No.1 - police
have registered a case. They have arrested the petitioner
on 13.12.2025. He is in judicial custody.
4. Heard Sri G.M.Sharathkumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Hiran
Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the
complaint. Though it is alleged in the said complaint that
the petitioner was having a gun at the time when he was
committing the sexual assault on the victim, the said
weapon has not been seized by the respondent - police.
NC: 2026:KHC:16625
HC-KAR
In fact, a false case has been registered against the
petitioner and he is innocent of the alleged offences.
6. It is further submitted that, though it is alleged that he
had committed sexual assault on the victim, the medical
report would indicate that the hymen was not torn at the
time when they conducted medical examination of the
victim. That itself would indicate that no such incident
had taken place between the victim and the petitioner.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner is aged about
29 years and he is the permanent resident of Uttar
Pradesh. He is also the resident of Officers Model Colony,
T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru-560057. He will abide the
conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his
release on bail. Making such submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
vehemently submitted that the statements of the victim
are consistent that the petitioner had assaulted her
sexually on three occasions. Due to the fear of seeing a
NC: 2026:KHC:16625
HC-KAR
deadly weapon like gun, the victim did not disclose the
said facts to her parents. Subsequently, she had to
disclose the fact to her sister, who is the complainant
herein. Thereafter, after due deliberation and consulting
the family members, they have lodged a complaint
against the petitioner.
9. It is further submitted that, merely because there is a
delay in lodging the complaint, it would not take away the
case of the prosecution. In fact, the statement of eye
witness/injured/victim prevails over the medical
evidence. Therefore, the statement of the victim assumes
greater significance than the medical evidence. In the
medical evidence, though it appears that the hymen was
intact, that does not mean that the incident had not
taken place. Therefore, the petitioner has committed a
heinous offence. Hence, he is not entitled for any relief
as prayed for. Making such submission, learned counsel
for the respondent No.2 prays to reject the petition.
10. Similarly, the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1 - State adopted the
NC: 2026:KHC:16625
HC-KAR
arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.2
and further submitted that the petitioner had criminal
antecedents. One more case, namely, Crime
No.511/2025 filed by the father of the complainant, is
pending against the petitioner for the offences under
Section 305, 218(2) and 3 of IPC. Such being the fact, if
the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is a threat to the
life of the complainant and her family members. Hence,
it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such
submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 - State prays to reject the petition.
11. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused
the averments made in the complaint. It appears from
the averments of the complaint that the petitioner had
committed sexual assault on the victim on 30.07.2023.
However, a complaint came to be registered on
13.12.2025. There is a delay of 28 months in filing the
complaint. It is further noted that, though it is stated in
the said complaint that the petitioner was having a
weapon in his hand at the time of committing the sexual
NC: 2026:KHC:16625
HC-KAR
assault on the victim, however, the said gun/weapon has
not been seized by the respondent - police. Moreover,
the medical report would indicate that the hymen was not
ruptured even though it is alleged that he had sexually
assaulted her on several occasions. Having considered
the nature, gravity of the offence and also other
circumstances, it is appropriate to grant him bail, by
imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the
apprehension of the prosecution.
12. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged
on bail in Special Case No.209/2026
pending on the file of learned Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-2,
Bengaluru, arising out of Crime
No.510/2025 of respondent-police for
the offences stated supra, on executing
a personal bond in a sum of
NC: 2026:KHC:16625
HC-KAR
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
with one local surety for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or
tamper the prosecution witnesses nor
hamper the proceedings of the Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the
Trial Court on all hearing dates without
fail.
(v) The petitioner shall not involve in any
similar or any criminal cases till
disposal of the two cases filed against
him.
In case the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions
as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file
necessary application for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
Bss
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
