Mr. v Channakrishna Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

VICTIM REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SMT. PALLAVI. G W/O CHENNAKRISHNA RAO .V AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.37, SRI. LAKSHMI NIVASA, 2^ND FLOOR, 14^TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. KALLESHAPPA K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483

¶23

BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.54/2024 FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 74, 75, 76, 78, 126(2), 351(2), 308(2) OF BNS AND SEC. 8, 12, 15(3), 18 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 REGISTERED BY THE NORTH-EAST WOMEN POLICE, THE SAID CRIME / CASE IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF FTSC-1, CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.

¶24

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

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:2244 CRL.P No. 14130 of 2024

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional SPP for the State and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2/victim, represented by her mother. Perused the material on record.

¶30

Crime No.54/2024 of North East Women Police Station, Bengaluru city, is registered against the petitioner on a complaint lodged by the victim-girl, for offences punishable under Section 74, 75, 76, 78, 126(2), 351(2), 308(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 8, 12, 15(3), 18 of the Protection of Children From Sexual offences Act, 2012.

¶31

The sum and substance of the complaint allegations

¶32

are that the petitioner being the step-father of minor victim, aged about 17 years, committed sexual assault on her and also attempted to commit rape. It is further alleged that the petitioner has taken semi-nude pictures of the victim girl in his mobile phone and he was black-mailing stating that he has the C.D and pen-drives

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:2244 CRL.P No. 14130 of 2024

¶35

of the victim and her mother and it will be uploaded in social media etc.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the entire allegations are false. There is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife and to settle the score, he has been falsely implicated in the case by his wife by lodging a fictitious complaint through her daughter. He has further contended that his wife has filed a M.C petition as well as a criminal case against him in Crime No.524/2023 alleging harassment etc. and now, she has come up with this idea of manipulating the mind of her daughter and in collusion with the Police and with a vendetta to get the petitioner arrested, has got registered the case through her daughter. He submitted that the petitioner is languishing in prison since 22.11.2024 and petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions and accordingly, sought to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:2244 CRL.P No. 14130 of 2024

¶39

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has filed statement of objections.

¶40

It is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner to show that he has committed heinous act against his own step-daughter and the allegations that he

¶41

has been falsely implicated is far from truth. They contended that the victim has categorically stated about the heinous act committed on her by the petitioner and at this stage, there are no grounds to disbelieve the same. Further, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may intimidate and threaten the victim girl and other prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, they have sought to dismiss the petition.

¶42

The complaint averments reveal the sexual act committed by the petitioner on the victim girl, aged about 17 years. At this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations are false. The victim has stated that due to

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2244 CRL.P No. 14130 of 2024

¶44

fear and in her own interest, she did not inform the matter to her mother and brother. However, the accused continued to commit the offence, started calling her on her mobile, black-mailed and threatened her etc.

¶45

The learned Sessions Judge, while dismissing the bail petition, has observed that there are serious allegations against the petitioner that he has forced the victim for sex and touched her private part when she was alone in the house. The said allegations are very much found in the complaint. The petition was dismissed as the investigation was not yet completed and it was in progress. The investigation being not yet complete and in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Petition is accordingly, dismissed.

¶46

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶47

BNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 CT:SNN

Mr. v. Channakrishna Rao v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. v. Channakrishna Rao v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madithati Anil Kumar Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sameer Pasha Vs State by Basavangudi Police Station

Maruthi Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraju @ Venkataraju @ Kodli Vs State of Karnataka

Mahammed Shameer G @ Sameer @ Chammi, Vs State of Karnataka

G Thippesha Vs State of Karnataka by