Narendra R Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BETHAMANGALA POLICE STATION, KOLAR DISTRICT 563 101, REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶18

XXXX

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI M.R. BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:19616 CRL.P No. 4981 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED ON REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.C.No.100/2024 OF BETHAMANGALA P.S., OFFENCE P/US/ 363,344,323,376,506, 143 OF IPC ALONG WITH SEC.6 OF POCSO ACT 2012 AND SEC.9 OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT 2006 WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS HON'BLE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC I (POCSO) AT KOLAR AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Accused in Spl.C. (POCSO) No.100/2024 pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I Kolar, arising out of Crime No.61/2024 registered by Bethamangala Police Station, KGF District, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 344, 323, 376(2)(n), 506, 212 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), Sections 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') and under Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 is before this Court in

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:19616 CRL.P No. 4981 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

this successive bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.), seeking regular bail.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶34

FIR in Crime No.61/2024 was registered by Bethamangala Police Station, KGF, for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and others based on the first information dated 30.04.2024 received from the victim girl. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 30.04.2024 and subsequently, remanded to judicial custody. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against six persons and petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in the charge sheet. His bail application filed before the jurisdictional Sessions Court was rejected and therefore, he approached this Court in Crl.P.No.8917/2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.10.2024 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition after examination of the victim girl-CW.1 is completed before the Trial Court. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court in this successive bail application seeking regular bail.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:19616 CRL.P No. 4981 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the victim girl has been completely examined before the Trial Court as PW.1 and in addition to the same, six other witnesses including the father of the victim girl have been examined as PWs.1 to 7. Since all the material charge sheet witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court, there cannot be any apprehension that petitioner is likely to tamper with the material charge sheet witnesses. The petitioner having no other criminal antecedents is in custody for the last more than one year and his detention is no more required. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

¶39

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant have opposed the petition. They submit that all the material charge sheet witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the victim girl (PW.1) has made allegations against accused, which would prima facie attract the charge sheeted offences.

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19616 CRL.P No. 4981 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Learned counsel for the de facto complainant submits that an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the accused to recall PW.1 and other witnesses and therefore, at this stage, petitioner's bail application cannot be entertained.

¶43

In reply, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that, if any such application is filed before the Trial Court, the same shall be withdrawn and he has also placed on record, a memo undertaking to withdraw the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., if any, before the Trial Court. He further submits that PW.1 will not be subjected to further crossexamination in the present case.

¶44

The submissions made on behalf of the parties and the memo is taken on record.

¶45

Material on record would go to show that on 11.04.2024, petitioner herein along with the other accused persons had allegedly gained forcible entry into the house of victim girl at about 11.30 p.m. and had kidnapped her in a car and thereafter, confined her in a room till 14.04.2024.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19616 CRL.P No. 4981 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Subsequently, the victim was shifted to some other premises on 16.04.2024 and on 18.04.2024. On 19.04.2024, the accused persons allegedly had taken the victim girl to a temple and petitioner had forcibly married her and thereafter, petitioner herein allegedly had sexual intercourse with the victim girl against her wishes. It is further averred in the first information that on 20.04.2024, father of victim girl had come to the place where the petitioner had confined the victim and had brought her back to their house. First information was subsequently filed in the present case on 30.04.2024, based on which, FIR was registered against the petitioner and others.

¶49

During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 30.04.2024 and subsequently, remanded to judicial custody. The allegation in the charge sheet is that accused Nos.1 to 4 had gained entry into the house of the victim girl at about 11.30 p.m. on 11.04.2024 and thereafter, they had kidnapped the victim girl and kept her initially in the house of accused No.5. Subsequently, the victim girl was shifted to the house of CWs.7 and 8. On 19.04.2024, in the presence of accused No.2, petitioner herein had forcibly married the victim

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:19616 CRL.P No. 4981 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

girl (CW.1) and had brought her back to the house of accused No.5 and had sexual intercourse with her from 19.04.2024 till 23.04.2024.

¶54

The date of birth of the victim girl, according to the prosecution, is 19.04.2024. Therefore, as on the alleged date of incident, the victim was already aged above 17 years. The victim girl has been now examined before the Trial Court as PW.1 and her father has been examined as PW.2. Other material charge sheet witnesses have been examined as PWs.3 to 7. Therefore, as rightly contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, there cannot be any apprehension that the petitioner may tamper with the material charge sheet witnesses. At the stage of considering the bail application of the accused, this Court cannot appreciate the deposition of the witnesses who have been examined before the Trial Court and a mini trial cannot be held.

¶55

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that PW.1 will not be subjected to further cross-examination and a memo is also filed on behalf of the petitioner undertaking that, if any application is filed before the Trial Court under Section 311 of

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19616 CRL.P No. 4981 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Cr.P.C. seeking further cross-examination of PW.1, the same shall be withdrawn. Petitioner having no criminal antecedents is in custody from 30.04.2024. Out of the 33 charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case till date, only seven charge sheet witnesses have been examined as PWs.1 to 7. Since the material charge sheet witnesses have already been examined, further detention of the petitioner in custody who has no other criminal antecedents is not warranted, more so since there cannot be any apprehension that he may indulge in tampering of the charge sheet witnesses. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the prayer for grant of bail needs to be answered affirmatively.

¶59

Accordingly, the following;

¶60

Order

¶61

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶62

(ii) The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.61/2024 registered by Bethamangala Police Station, KGF District, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 344, 323, 376(2)(n), 506, 212 of IPC, Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act and under Sections 9

¶63

9 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:19616 CRL.P No. 4981 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006,

¶67

subject to the following conditions:

¶68

(a) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶69

(b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶70

(c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶71

(d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶72

(e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶73

SD/-

¶74

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶75

MV, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Narendra R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra R 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

Gangagaju @ T Gangappa Vs State of Karnataka

Faizal Pasha Vs State by Chandra Layout Police

Sri Mohammad Ismayil @ Ismayil @ Pittal Vs State by Karnataka of Varuna Police

Ravi S M Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Hakiulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghu Vs State by