Sri Srishanth @ Srikanth @ Appu Vs State by Chikkajala P.S.

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44484 CRL.A No. 1694 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1694 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SRISHANTH @ SRIKANTH @ APPU S/O LATE HARISH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/AT AVATHI VILLAGE,

¶9

VIJAYAPUR HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562110.

¶10

&APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA P.H., ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE BY CHIKKAJALA P.S. REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

MR. RANGANATHA S/O SUBBANNA

¶16

AGED ABOUTN 47 YEARS, R/AT NEAR DODDAMMA TEMPLE, HUNASAMARNAHALLI VILLAGE & POST, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE CITY - 562157.

¶17

&RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED: 04.11.2025 NOTICE TO R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATE 04.06.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.3892/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 87,

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44484 CRL.A No. 1694 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

64(2)(M), 65(1) OF BNS SEC.5(L),6 OF POCSO ACT 2012 UNDER SEC.3(2)(v) OF PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT 1989 PASS BY THE COURT OF HON'BLE COURT OF THE FTSC IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CR.NO.240/2024 REGISTERED BY CHIKKAJALA P.S. PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU FTSC-IV.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 04^th June, 2025 passed in Crl. Misc.No.3892 of 2025 by

¶27

the FTSC-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru and enlarge him on bail in Crime No.240 of 2024 registered by Chikkajala Police station.

¶28

Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the basis of the complaint filed by Ranganatha, Chikkajala Police registered Crime No.240 of 2024 against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 87 of BNS2023. After investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), 87 of BNS-2023 and under Sections 5(L) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; and under Section 3(2)(v) of

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44484 CRL.A No. 1694 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Accused was arrested on 06^th December, 2024 and was remanded to judicial custody. Till this date, accused is in judicial custody. Bail application was filed under Section 483 of BNSS-2023, came to be rejected by the trial Court on 04^th June, 2025. Being aggrieved by the rejection of bail application, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.

¶32

Sri Raghavendra P.H., learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the accused has not committed any offence as alleged against him. The Investigating Officer has produced the victim before the Magistrate for recording statement under Section 183 of BNSS2023, in which she has not stated anything against the accused. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 while recording statement under Section 183 of BNSS-2023, she has not deposed anything against this accused. Victim has not been subjected to medical examination as the victim has refused to undergo medical examination. Since the evidence of victim has already been recorded, the question of tampering or

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:44484 CRL.A No. 1694 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

threatening the victim does not arise. The accused is in judicial custody for nearly ten months now and the accused in ready to abide to any of the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.

¶37

As against this, Sri R. Rangaswamy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that as per the birth certificate, the victim was minor at the time of alleged incident. PW1 has supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. On all these grounds, it is sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶38

I have examined the materials placed before this

¶39

Court. the learned Magistrate, Devanahalli, has recorded the statement of victim under Section 183 of BNSS-2023 on 06^th January, 2025, which reads as under:

¶40

" ²æÃ±ÁAvï JA§ÀÄªÀªÀgÀÄ E£Áì÷ÖUÁæªÀiï £À°è ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ DVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ ®ªÀ¸ïð DzÉªÀÅ. D PÁgÀt¢AzÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è E®èzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ²æÃ±ÁAvï £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. F jÃw ²æÃ±ÁAvï £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÁgt, £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:44484 CRL.A No. 1694 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

ZÁ®PÀ£ÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛ¢Ã ÝAiÀÄ, £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JAzÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ²æÃ±ÁAvï £À£ÀUÉ ¤ªÀÄä C¥Àà CªÀÄä gÀªÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀÄ PÉÃ¼À¨ÉÃqÀ, £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß zÀÆgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½ ªÉÆzÀ°UÉ zÉÃªÀ£ÀºÀ½îUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ C°èAzÀ DªÀw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DªÀw¬ÄAzÀ PÉÆÃgÀªÀÄAUÀ®zÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ±À²PÀÄªÀiÁgï JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ £À£Àß£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. ±À²PÀÄªÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æÃ±ÁAvï 10 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ® EzÉÝªÀÅ. C°èUÉ £À£Àß C¥Àà CªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. "

¶45

The victim has not whispered anything against this accused at the time of recording statement under Section 183 of BNSS-2023. During the cross-examination, at paragraph No.3 she has clearly admitted that she has not deposed anything against the accused. Since the evidence of PW1 is already recorded, the question of threatening or tampering the prosecution witnesses does not arise.

¶46

It is submitted that the trial is not concluded. There are 29 witnesses in the charge-sheet and out of them only 7 witnesses are examined. It will take much time to conclude the trial. The age of the appellant/accused is 19 years. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and also the inconsistent evidence of PW1 which is contrary to the statement recorded by the learned Magistrate on oath, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:44484 CRL.A No. 1694 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

merits of the case, it is just and proper to release the accused

¶51

on bail putting him on conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

O R D E R

¶53

i) Appeal is allowed;

¶54

ii) Order dated 04^th June, 2025 passed in Crl. Misc.No.3892 of 2025 by the FTSC-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru, is set aside;

¶55

iii) Appellant/accused shall be released on bail upon executing a self-bond for Rs.1,00,000/with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court;

¶56

iv) Appellant/accused shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

¶57

v) Appellant/accused shall appear before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing.

¶58

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶59

lnn/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri Srishanth @ Srikanth @ Appu v. State by Chikkajala P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srishanth @ Srikanth @ Appu v. State by Chikkajala P.S.

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

Manjunatha. G. K. Vs the State by Holalkere Police

Sachin B @ Kambali Sachin Vs State by Hosanagara Police

Union of India by Inspector Vs Sri K. Selvam

The State of Karnataka, Vs K. Ramakrishna

M/S Mjr Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrs Jayalaxmi Reddy

Sri M.S. Sreepada Rao Vs Sri Krishnoji Rao