B S Rajashekharaiah Vs State of Karnataka

B S RAJASHEKHARAIAH S/O LATE SREEKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.34, RUDRA NILAYA, GRUHALAKSHMI COLONY IST STAGE, BASAVESHVARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560079.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY Smt. N PADMAVATHI.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

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

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAHMANYANAGARA POLICE STATION,

¶17

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY Smt.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:50140 CRL.P No. 14877 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE ABOVE CASE IN CRIME NO.0112/2025 BY THE SUBRAHMANYANAGAR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 75, 78, 64, 351(2) READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BNS 2023 AND SECTION 66(E) OF THE IT ACT 2000 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LD XXXII ACMM, BENGALURU.

¶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 the accused No.2 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to grant bail in Crime No.112/2025 of Subramanyanagar Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 75, 78, 64, 351(2), read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and

¶29

learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶30

respondent/State.

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:50140 CRL.P No. 14877 of 2025

¶32

3 -

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The learned counsel for petitioner would

¶35

contend that, the petitioner is the father of accused No.1. The allegation against the petitioner is that, when victim girl asked the petitioner to delete the video, he demanded Rs.8,00,000/- and asked her to sleep with the persons known to him. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 30.08.2025, and as the charge sheet is filed, he is not required for custodial interrogation. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. She further submitted that, there was love affair between CW1 and accused No.1, and CW1 earlier had filed complaint, and the police have given acknowledgment on 22.05.2024, where under the victim has prayed restraining accused No.1 from contacting her, and her family members. With this, she prayed to allow the petition.

¶36

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶37

Pleader for the respondent/State would contend that, the statement of victim girl has been recorded under Section

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50140 CRL.P No. 14877 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

183 of the BNS, 2023 where in she has stated the acts of this petitioner demanding Rs.8,00,000/- for deleting her videos and asking her to go with the persons of his instructions to sleep with them. The charge sheet shows a prima facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. With this, she prayed to reject the petition.

¶41

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

¶42

As per charge sheet, the case of prosecution is that, accused No.1 came in contact with CW1 through Instagram was following her, and even though she stated that, she is not interested in him, he fixed GPS to her scooter, and subsequently, accused No.1 having forcible sexual intercourse on CW1 in a hotel and recording the said act. The allegation against the petitioner/accused No.1/the father of accused No.1, is that when the victim girl asked him to delete the videos, he demanded

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:50140 CRL.P No. 14877 of 2025

¶44

5 -

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Rs.8,00,000/- and asked the victim to sleep with persons of his choice. There is no serious allegations against this petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 30.08.2025, and as the charge sheet is filed, he is not required for custodial introduction. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner.

¶47

Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail with conditions.

¶48

In the result, the following

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i) The petition is allowed.

¶51

ii) The petitioner is granted bail in Crime No.112/2025 of Subramanya Nagar Police Station

¶52

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 75, 78, 64, 351(2), read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:50140 CRL.P No. 14877 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66E of Information Technology

¶57

Act, 2000 subject to following conditions:

¶58

a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶59

b) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶60

c) The petitioner shall attend the Trial Court on all dates of the hearing, unless exempted and co-operate for speedy disposal of the case.

¶61

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶62

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

B S Rajashekharaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B S Rajashekharaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Kumar @ Kumarnaika Vs State of Karnataka

Kum Najma Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Vs State by Karnataka by

Sri.Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

A Raviteja Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Nithyananda Naika Vs State of Karnataka