Kumara. G. Vs State of Karnataka by

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CALLAKERE POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDI AT BANGALURU- 560 001.

¶14

MANJAMMA

¶15

W/O NAGARAJAPPA AGED 40 YEARS R/AT NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE. CHALLAKERE TALUK

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:45603 CRL.P No. 13719 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN-577 522.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CRIME No.188/2025 OF CHALLAKERE POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 64 OF BNS AND SECTIONS 4,5(J)(II), 5(L), 6 OF POCSO ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN SPL.C (P) No.85/2025.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed by the sole accused under

¶27

Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.188/2025 of Challakere Police Station registered for offences under Section 64 of BNS and Section 4, 5(J)(II), 5(L), 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:45603 CRL.P No. 13719 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶32

learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 -State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim girl. After marriage, they resided together and victim girl became pregnant. There is no any complaint by the victim girl. The complaint has been filed by CDPO when victim girl gave birth to a female child in the hospital. Even the parents of the victim girl or any other relative have not filed any complaint. There is no age proof of the victim girl and the doctor who conducted ossification test has certified that the victim is of the age of 18 years. As charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶34

Per contra, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 -State would contend that the doctor who conducted ossification test has issued a certificate stating

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:45603 CRL.P No. 13719 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

that victim is of the age of 18 years and it indicates that as on the date of offence, she was minor. The victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS has stated regarding her love affair, marriage with the petitioner and she giving birth to a female child and petitioner harassing her. The charge sheet materials show prima facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. With this, she prayed for rejection of the petition.

¶39

Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused charge sheet and other metals placed on record.

¶40

On perusal of charge sheet, the statement of

¶41

the victim girl recorded by the police. She has stated that she and petitioner are loving each other since 02 years and the petitioner marrying her in a temple, she residing with him leading marital life and having sexual intercourse with him. She has further stated that she became pregnant and she gave birth to a female child on 17.04.2025. There is no age proof of the victim girl. The

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45603 CRL.P No. 13719 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

doctor who conducted ossification test has issued

¶45

certificate that victim girl is aged 18 years. Parents of the victim girl have not filed any complaint. The complaint is filed by CDPO. The victim girl was of the age of understanding, as on the date of alleged incident. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 22.04.2025 and as the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has made out case for grant of bail with conditions.

¶46