Manoj @ M Mahendra Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

Manoj @ M Mahendra Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner/accused released on bail in Spl.Case No.248/2024 pending before the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I at Chamarajanagara District, subject to conditions: (i) bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the likesum; (ii) furnish proof of residential address and inform the Court of any change; (iii) not contact, intimidate or influence the victim; (iv) not tamper with prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; (v) appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing and cooperate for early disposal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/accused, charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 5(l), 5(j)(2), 6 POCSO Act 2012 in Spl.Case No.248/2024 (Crime No.103/2024, Chamarajanagar Rural Police Station), should be enlarged on bail under Section 483 BNSS. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner/accused can be admitted to bail by imposing stringent conditions; the petition is allowed and bail granted in Spl.Case No.248/2024 subject to conditions (bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties, proof of residential address, no contact with or intimidation of the victim, no tampering with prosecution witnesses, appearance before the trial Court on every date of hearing).

Ratio / Principle

Although the prosecution relies on school records showing the victim's date of birth as 01.01.2008, the prosecution has to establish the age of the victim in accordance with law in a full-fledged trial; the age dispute is therefore not conclusive against the accused at the bail stage.

Key takeaways

The material on record reveals a love affair between the petitioner and the victim, and though sexual assault was alleged on two occasions prior to March 2024, the complaint came to be lodged only after the victim's pregnancy was revealed.ratio¶¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted under Section 483 BNSS (read with Section 439 Cr.P.C.) to Manoj @ M.Mahendra (aged about 21 years), accused in Crime No.103/2024 of Chamarajanagar Rural Police Station (originally Crime No.81/2024 of Metagalli Police Station, transferred for jurisdiction), charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 5(l), 5(j)(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, tried as Spl.Case No.248/2024 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I, Chamarajanagar. Prosecution case: the accused, knowing the girl to be a minor (alleged age 16), committed penetrative sexual assault on her on 26.01.2024 and 04.03.2024, consequent to which she became pregnant (23 weeks on medical examination; pregnancy later terminated); complaint lodged on 11.07.2024 only after the pregnancy was revealed. Prosecution relied on school records showing the victim's date of birth as 01.01.2008; the defence disputed her age, noting she had completed SSLC and was studying in II PUC, and placed reliance on 'Deshraj @ Musa V. State of Rajasthan and another', SLP (Crl) No.11020/2024. The Court noted the love affair between the parties, the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused's custody since 28.08.2024, completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet, and held that the prosecution must establish the victim's age in a full-fledged trial. Petition allowed; bail granted on a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties, with conditions including furnishing proof of residence, no contact with or intimidation of the victim, no tampering with witnesses, and attendance on every hearing date. Coram: Hon'ble Mr Justice Mohammad Nawaz (NC: 2025:KHC:327).

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:327 CRL.P No. 12099 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12099 OF 2024 (439(Cr.PC) /

483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

MANOJ @ M.MAHENDRA S/O MAHESH.K AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT MUDNAKUDU VILLAGE, HARAVE HOBLI, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571128.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR.B, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RURAL POLICE CHAMARAJANGARA REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU -560001.

XXXXX AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN SRI. MANTELINGAIAH S/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT F-3 BLOCK NO.51,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:327 CRL.P No. 12099 of 2024

EKALAVYA NAGAR, SHYADANHALLI VILLAGE, MYSURU TALUK & DISTRICT-571441.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY.R, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; R2 SERVICE H/S)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.103/2024 REGISTERED BY THE CHAMARAJANAGAR RURAL POLICE STATION, IN SPL.CASE NO.248/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376, 376(2)(N) OF IPC AND SECTION 5(L), 5(J) (II), 6 OF POCSO ACT 2012, PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-1 AT CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the

State and perused the material on record.

Learned High Court Government Pleader

submits that respondent No.2 has been served with notice. However, there is no representation.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:327 CRL.P No. 12099 of 2024

This petition is preferred under Section 483 of

BNSS, 2023 praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Spl.Case No.248/2024 pending on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I at Chamarajanagar District.

Crime No.81/2024 came to be registered at Metagalli Police Station against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 5(j)(ii), 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376 of IPC, on a complaint received by the minor victim. On the point of jurisdiction, the said case was transferred to Chamarajanagar Rural Police Station and registered in Crime No.103/2024.

On completion of investigation the police have filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 376, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l), 5(j)(2) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

The gist of the prosecution case is that, petitioner/accused knowing very well that the victim girl is a minor induced her and committed penetrative sexual

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:327 CRL.P No. 12099 of 2024

assault with her on 26.01.2024 and 04.03.2024, consequent to which she became pregnant and thereby committed the aforementioned offences.

The medical record reveals that the victim was

23 weeks pregnant when she was examined by the doctor. Her pregnancy was later terminated.

A perusal of the complaint averments goes to show that the victim girl while studying in Government High School at Mukkadahalli, got acquainted with the accused while traveling in the bus which turned into a love affair and later in the month of January, the accused took her to a secluded place on the way to Chamarajanagar and committed penetrative sexual assault on her and again in the month of March 2024, once again took her to the same place and committed the offence.

It appears that when the victim girl was taken to the hospital, the incident came to light subsequent to which, her statements were recorded by the police and also by the learned Magistrate.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:327 CRL.P No. 12099 of 2024

The complaint was lodged on 11.07.2024. According to the prosecution the victim was a minor aged about 16 years as on the date of commission of offence. However, the age of the victim has been seriously disputed by the learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner. He contended that when the victim herself has stated in her complaint that she has completed SSLC and she was studying in II PUC, she cannot be a minor aged 16 years. Relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Deshraj @ Musa V. State of Rajasthan and another’, SLP (Crl) No.11020/2024 he contended in a similar circumstance where there was a consensual relationship between the parties and where the victim was aged about 16 years, the Hon’ble Apex Court has extended the benefit of bail to the accused.

Learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the prayer for bail contending that as per school records the date of birth of the victim is 01.01.2008, hence, the victim was a minor aged below 18 years as on

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:327 CRL.P No. 12099 of 2024

the date of commission of offence. He contended that the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous in nature and in the event of grant of bail, petitioner may influence the victim not to give evidence before the Court and therefore, seeks to reject the petition.

A perusal of the entire material on record reveals that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the victim. Though it is alleged that prior to March 2024, on two occasions the victim was sexually assaulted by the petitioner, the complaint came to be lodged only after the victim’s pregnancy was revealed. The prosecution is relying on the school records where the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 01.01.2008. However, the prosecution has to establish the age of the victim in accordance with law in a full-fledged trial. Victim’s statement has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused is aged about 21 years. He is in custody since 28.08.2024. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:327 CRL.P No. 12099 of 2024

Considering the above facts and circumstances,

petitioner can be admitted to bail by imposing stringent conditions. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

Petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Spl.Case No.248/2024 pending on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I at Chamarajanagara District, subject to following conditions:

i. He shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.

ii. He shall furnish proof of his residential address and shall inform the Court if there is any change in the address.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:327 CRL.P No. 12099 of 2024

iii. He shall not contact the victim and shall not intimidate or influence her in any manner.

iv. He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

v. He shall appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing without fail and shall cooperate for the early disposal of the case.

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

HB

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38