Mutthnna Vs the State of Karnataka

SMT. RENUKA W/O LATE MAREPPA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O WARD NO.18, S.R. NAGAR, HOSAPETE, NOW R/O NEAR GOUTAM HOSPITAL, ADARSH COLONY, SINDHANUR, TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR -584128.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1549 CRL.P No. 200216 of 2025

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS, R/W SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN SINDHANUR TOWN PS CRIME NO.178/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTIONS 351(2), 64, 96 OF BNS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR SITTING AT SINDHANUR AND SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST POA ACT.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

¶24

The petitioner approached this Court seeking for

¶25

regular bail in Crime No.178/2024 registered by the Sindhanur Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 351(2), 64 and 96 of BNS, 2023.

¶26

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶27

It is the case of the prosecution that the mother of

¶28

the victim has lodged a complaint stating that her daughter Keertana, aged about 16 years was working in beauty parlor at Sindhanur. The accused used to follow

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1549 CRL.P No. 200216 of 2025

¶30

her and was inducing her in one or the other pretext and also taking her to various places. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused took her to Mallapur cross and stated to have committed sexual assault. The fact was known to the complainant after the lapse of several days. Therefore, she lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police on 10.11.2024. The jurisdictional police have registered the case in Crime No.178/2024 for the offences stated supra.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the respective

¶32

parties.

¶33

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. The petitioner was not aware about the actual age of the victim, as she was working as beautician in the beauty parlor. He thought that her age might be above 18 years and he had intention to marry her. However, he learnt that she was not completed 18 years. Therefore, he instructed her to wait till completion of 18 years and also

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1549 CRL.P No. 200216 of 2025

¶35

assured her that he would marry her after attaining the age of marriage. In the meantime, he was arrested by the jurisdictional police in respect of the offences stated supra.

¶36

It is further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 27 years and he is the permanent resident of Sindhanur and he is the only earning member of the family. He will abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail.

¶37

Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶38

Pleader vehemently apposed the said submissions and submitted that the victim is aged about 16 years and she has been induced by the petitioner and thereafter he took her to isolated place near Mallapur cross and committed sexual assault. Such being the fact, enlarging the petitioner on bail, certainly would impact on the future of the victim and also there is likelihood of threatening her and her family members. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant bail.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1549 CRL.P No. 200216 of 2025

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶41

respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears that the alleged incident stated to have taken place on 31.10.2024 at about 7-30 p.m. and a complaint came to be registered on 10.11.2024. In fact, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim was working as a beautician in beauty parlor and her actual age was not aware to the petitioner has to be considered for the reason that the victim was working as a beautician. Without adverting to the merit of the case, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to grant bail by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶44

(ii) The petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.178/2024 registered by the Sindhanur Town Police Station for the offences punishable under

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1549 CRL.P No. 200216 of 2025

¶46

Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 351(2), 64 and 96 of BNS, 2023, pending on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur sitting at Sindhanur and Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act, by executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on the following conditions:

¶47

a. The petitioner shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶48

b. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶49

c. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court till disposal of the case.

¶50

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶51

RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT:PK

Mutthnna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mutthnna v. the 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

Shekhar @ Rajashekhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Zuber S/O Sayyed Mahamood Khazi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shaikh Jashimuddin Vs the State of Karnataka

Dinesh @ Hukrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a Vanangamudi Vs the State of Karnataka

Saraswati Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.