Dismissed¶53

Prabhu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2025CRL.P/12005/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refused; regular bail denied; POCSO; BNS 65(1); Section 483 BNSS; Section 439 Cr.P.C.; CRL.P No. 12005 of 2025; High Court of Karnataka; sole accused Prabhu; Spl.CC.No.986/2025; Crime No.158/2025 Mahadevapura P.S.; victim aged 15 (DOB 13.03.2010); incident dated 13.03.2025; forcible taking and forcible sexual intercourse by blackmail; statement under Section 183 BNS; hymen absent; sexual assault cannot be ruled out; judicial custody since 15.03.2025; charge sheet filed; Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge FTSC-V Bengaluru; dismissed by Shivashankar Amarannavar J. on 10.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

As per school records, the victim girl's date of birth is 13.03.2010; the alleged incident took place on 13.03.2025, when she was aged 15 years. ¶44

Prabhu Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, sole accused in Spl.CC.No.986/2025 (arising out of Crime No.158/2025, Mahadevapura P.S.), should be granted bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 127(2), 137(2), 65(1) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶23

Court's answer

As per school records, the victim girl's date of birth is 13.03.2010; the alleged incident took place on 13.03.2025, when she was aged 15 years.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

In her statement before the police and before the learned Magistrate under Section 183 of BNS, 2023, the victim girl stated the acts of the petitioner in forcibly taking her to his house and having forcible sexual intercourse on her by blackmailing her.

¶44

Key takeaways

The doctor who examined the victim girl opined that the hymen of the victim is absent and that sexual assault cannot be ruled out.ratio¶44
Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has not made out any grounds for grant of bail; the Criminal Petition is dismissed.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Shivashankar Amarannavar J., 10.12.2025) dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. / Section 483 BNSS, 2023 seeking bail for the sole accused, Prabhu (aged 23, in judicial custody since 15.03.2025; charge sheet filed), in Spl.CC.No.986/2025 arising out of Crime No.158/2025 of Mahadevapura P.S., pending before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-V, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 127(2), 137(2) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. School records showed the victim girl's date of birth as 13.03.2010, making her 15 years old on the date of the alleged incident (13.03.2025). Her statements before the police and before the learned Magistrate under Section 183 of BNS, 2023 alleged that the petitioner forcibly took her to his house and had forcible sexual intercourse on her by blackmailing her. The examining doctor opined that the hymen of the victim is absent and that sexual assault cannot be ruled out. Respondent No.2 remained present and prayed against grant of bail. Holding that the petitioner had not made out any grounds for grant of bail, the Court dismissed the petition.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:52158 CRL.P No. 12005 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12005 OF 2025

¶9

(439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

PRABHU, SON OF LATE RAMANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, KOTHNURU DINNE, JP NAGAR 8^TH STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. KUSHAL GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ABHINAY Y T.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION

¶17

REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

¶18

VENKATESH, SON OF TOPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS AND RESIDING AT #125, 3^RD CROSS, OPP. BBMP PARK, NARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU - 571 455.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.B PUSHPALATHA, ADDL. SPP, R2 - SERVED AND PRESENT IN O/C/H)

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52158 CRL.P No. 12005 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN SPL.CC.NO.986/2025 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.158/2025 REGISTERED BY MAHADEVAPURA P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-V, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 127(2), 137(2), 65(1) OF BNS, UNDER SECTIONS 4(2) AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition is filed by sole accused under Section

¶28

483 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 paying to grant bail in Spl. CC No.986/2025 pending on the file of the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge FTSCV, Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable under

¶29

Sections 127(2), 137(2), 65(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4(2) and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 (arising out of Crime No.158/2025 of Mahadevpura Police Station).

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for

¶31

respondent/State.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52158 CRL.P No. 12005 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Respondent No.2 is present and prays not to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶35

The learned counsel for petitioner would

¶36

contend that, the petitioner is aged 23 years, and he is in judicial custody since 15.03.2025. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. The father of the victim earlier had filed a missing complaint. Subsequently on the statement of the victim girl, the offences under POCSO Act has been invoked against the petitioner. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶37

Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State would contend that, the date of birth of the victim girl is 13.03.2010, and as on the date of incident, she was aged 15 years. The victim girl in her statement before the police and also in a statement under Section 183 of BNS, 2023, has stated the acts of this petitioner, taking her forcible and having

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:52158 CRL.P No. 12005 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

forcible sexual intercourse on her. The medical records indicate that, her hymen is ruptured, and doctor has opined that sexual assault cannot be ruled out. The charge sheet materials show prima facie case against the petitioner. With this, she prayed to reject the petition.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel, the Court

¶43

has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

¶44

As per school records, the date of birth of the victim girl is 13.03.2010. The alleged incident has taken place on 13.03.2025 and as on that date, she was aged 15 years. The victim girl in her statement before the police and also before the learned Magistrate under Section 183 of BNS, 2023 has stated the acts of this petitioner forcibly taking her to his house, and having forcible sexual intercourse on her by blackmailing her. The doctor, who examined the victim girl, has opined that the hymen of the victim is absent, and opined that sexual assault cannot be

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:52158 CRL.P No. 12005 of 2025

¶46

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

ruled out. The victim girl in the history given before the doctor has stated that the petitioner took her to his house by blackmailing her, and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly.

¶49