Srinath K a @ Seenappa Vs State of Karnataka

MURTHY @ NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O. LATE RAMANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT KUDUMALAKUNTE VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561208.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2025 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 65(1) OF BNS AND SEC.4, 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 IN SPL.SC.NO.2/2025 (CRIME NO.292/2024) OF GOWRIBIDANUR RURAL POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT AND CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:42514 CRL.A No. 2040 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal against the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura in Spl.SC.No.002/2025 on the bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS, 2023’).

¶29

The brief facts leading to this appeal are that,

¶30

on the basis of the complaint filed by the victim girl, Gowribidanuru police have registered the case in Crime No.292/2024 against this accused for the commission of offences under Section 65 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023; under Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’); and under Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:42514 CRL.A No. 2040 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

After thorough investigation, the Investigating

¶35

Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 65 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023; under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act; and under Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶36

The appellant has filed application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for regular bail and the same came to be rejected by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura on 21.08.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Lethif.B., would submit that the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., recorded by the Jurisdictional Magistrate is not found in the charge sheet. Further, he would submit that the ossification test is done by the Medical Officer and the

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42514 CRL.A No. 2040 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Medical Officer has given report that the age of the victim is between 14 to 16 years. That the alleged incident took place on 24.08.2024 and the date of FIR is 01.11.2024. That there is abnormal delay of about 3 months in filing this complaint. The medical evidence is also not certain and the medical evidence reveals that there might be a chance of intercourse. Further, he would submit that since the date of arrest, till today, the accused is in judicial custody. The Trial Court has not recorded the evidence of the victim till this date as required under Section 35 of the POCSO Act. On all these grounds, learned counsel has sought for allowing the appeal.

¶41

As against this, learned High Court Government

¶42

Pleader Sri.B.Lakshman would submit that the Investigating Officer has produced the victim before the Magistrate and the Magistrate has recorded the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and that there are sufficient materials to attract the alleged offences and alleged

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:42514 CRL.A No. 2040 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

commission of offences are heinous in nature. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶47

A perusal of the materials placed before me, it is crystal clear that the alleged incident took place on 24.08.2024. The complaint came to be filed on 01.11.2024 and there is 69 days delay in filing the complaint. The Trial

¶48

Court has observed in paragraph 13 as under:

¶49

“13. The I.O., on completion of the investigation Charge-Sheeted the accused. Cognizance taken for the offence punishable under Sections 64[2][m], 65[1] of BNS and under Sections 4[2], 5[1] punishable under section 6 of the POCSO Act and under sections 3[1][w], 3[2][v] of SC and ST [Prevention of Atrocities] Amendment Act and copy the charge sheet is served upon the accused. On framing the charge the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed o be tried. During the trial the accused came up with the application claiming that the I.O failed to comply Section 41 of Cr.P.C., [Section 35 of BNSS], due to the noncompliance of the provisions of law, his

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:42514 CRL.A No. 2040 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

fundamental rights got violated. The learned PP claims that, the PW-1 and PW-2 are examined and victim girl is aged about 14 years. The accused is of her father’s age. Mistake committed by the I.O., if any is not the ground for granting bail. The bail application filed by the accused came to be rejected on 15.04.2025 accused failed to refer the changed circumstances that provided him an opportunity to file fresh bail application. Mother of victim girl seriously opposed bail application. Evidence of the victim girl and other material witnesses is yet to be completed. Since the trial is going on, considering the gravity of the offence, statement of victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and statement of the victim girl given before the medical officer, age of the victim girl and gravity of the offence, I am of the opinion that, the accused does not become entitle for the bail till the completion of the evidence of the material witnesses. Hence, from all these discussion, I proceed to answer point No.1 in the Negative.”

¶54

8 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:42514 CRL.A No. 2040 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Whether the prosecution has furnished proper

¶58

explanation for the delay in filing the complaint or not has to be examined only after the full-fledged trial. The Trial Court has observed that statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., is recorded. The age of the victim, at the time of commission of offence, was 14 years. The alleged commission of offences are heinous in nature and punishable with imprisonment of life sentence. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on record in accordance with law and facts.

¶59