Manoj N Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8905 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANOJ N., S/O NATARAJ M, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.163, 3^RD CROSS, ASHRAYA LAYOUT SINGAPURA, SINGAPORE VILLAGE, PO: VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560097

¶8

ACCORDING TO FIR: R/AT NO.162, SREEKANTHA LAYOUT, BEHIND KANAKA BHAVANA, SINGAPURA, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C. SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH VIDYARANYAPURA PS., REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560001

¶13

XXX

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. ASMA KAUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; V/O DT. 15.07.2025, R2 - SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL U/S 483 BNSS IN CRIME NO.160/2025 OF VIDYARANAYAPURA P.S., ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-IV BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 65(2), 64(2)(f) OF BNS, 2023 AND SEC.5(n), 5(m), 6 OF POCSO ACT.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Accused in Crime No.160/2025 registered by

¶24

Vidyaranyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 65(2), 64(2)(f) of BNS, 2023, Sections 5(n), 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is before this Court under Section 483 of BNS, 2023 seeking regular bail.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Respondent No.2, has appeared in person before this Court.

¶29

FIR in Crime No.160/2025 was registered by Vidyaranyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences, on the basis of the first information dated 23.05.2025 received from respondent No.2 herein, who is the mother of the victim girl, aged about 4 years 9 months. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 23.05.2025 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody.

¶30

The bail application filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.4503/2025 was dismissed on 19.06.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first informant is the sister-in-law of the petitioner and there is a dispute between the two families with regard to certain landed properties and therefore with ulterior motive, the first informant has filed a false complaint

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

against the petitioner, who is an Engineer by profession.

¶35

The victim girl and her mother have not cooperated for medical examination of the victim. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶36

Per contra , learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 who has opposed the bail application submits that the victim girl has made an allegation against the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNS, 2023, which corroborates with the allegation found in the first information. She submits that though major portion of the investigation is already completed, charge sheet is yet to be filed. Considering the gravity of offence, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶37

Respondent No.2 who has appeared in person

¶38

before this Court has strongly opposed the prayer made in the petition. She submits that her husband is a drunkard

¶39

and he has not been taking care of her and her child. She also submits that she is not interested in her husband's property and she has not filed a false complaint against

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the petitioner for the sake of property. She submits that she was informed that only on the basis of the statement of the victim the petitioner can be prosecuted and therefore she had not cooperated for the purpose of medical examination of the victim girl. She submits that victim girl was likely to be put into inconvenience, if she was medically examined and therefore she had not cooperated for the same.

¶43

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, petitioner's elder brother is the husband of the first informant and the father of the alleged victim girl. The first informant has filed a typed complaint on 23.05.2025 before the Vidyaranyapura Police Station, Bengaluru alleging that when her minor daughter had gone to her inlaws house on 21.05.2025, the petitioner had sexually assaulted her by inserting his finger to her private part and this was informed to her by her minor daughter, after she returned home.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

During the course of investigation the petitioner

¶47

was arrested in the present case on 23.05.2025 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. It is not in dispute that the first informant and her minor daughter have not cooperated for the purpose of medical examination of the victim girl. In the statement of the victim girl that was recorded under Section 183 of BNS, 2023 by the jurisdictional Magistrate, she has made allegations against the petitioner, which corroborates with the allegations found in the first information. The reason assigned by respondent No.2, who is the mother of the victim girl for not cooperating for the medical examination of the victim girl is not convincing and on the other hand having regard to the dispute between the family members with regard to certain property a shadow of doubt arises about the allegation made against the petitioner.

¶48

The parents of the petitioner who are the grand parents of the victim girl have filed affidavits before this Court and in the said affidavit it is stated that their elder

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

son and his wife, who is the first informant in the present

¶52

case had left their house and were staying separately in a rented premises. They have stated that their elder son used to drop the victim girl in their house. They have further stated that on 05.11.2024, the first informant had quarreled with them demanding transfer of house property, in which they are residing, in her name and when they had refused for the same, she allegedly had assaulted her father-in-law and in this regard a police complaint was also filed by her father-in-law before the Vidyaranyapura Police Station, which has resulted in NCR No.786/2024. They have further stated in their affidavit

¶53

that subsequently their son, who is the petitioner herein had purchased a site at Yelahanka and therefore the first informant become more furious and it is in this background, a false complaint was lodged by her and she had tutored her daughter to make allegation against the petitioner. They have also stated that their elder son had forwarded them a video, which would go to show that the

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

first informant had tutored the victim girl to make statement against the petitioner. In their affidavit, they have also stated that in the CCTV installed in their house the movements of the inmates of their house is captured and at no point of time, the petitioner was alone with the victim girl and they have also stated that though the said CCTV footage was handed over to the police, the same was not collected by the Police. They have stated that the petitioner, who is their younger son is an Engineer and he has been taking care of them, after their elder son and his wife had left them.

¶57

A reading of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner would go to show that, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Sessions Court to direct the Investigation Officer to collect the CCTV footage captured inside the house of the petitioner. However, the said request appears to have been rejected for the reason that the Court cannot interfere with the

¶58

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

investigation and direct the Investigation Officer to collect

¶61

a particular evidence.

¶62

Learned Addl. SPP has fairly submitted that major portion of the investigation is already completed. The petitioner, who is an Engineer by profession having no criminal antecedents is in custody from 23.05.2025 onwards. The allegation now found against the petitioner is required to be proved in a full-fledged trial.

¶63

The medical examination report of the victim girl would have been a better piece of evidence having regard to the nature of allegation found against the petitioner. The reason assigned in the first informant for not cooperating for the medical examination of the victim girl is not cogent.

¶64

No doubt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act there is a presumption against the petitioner but the same can always be rebutted. Under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, there is a presumption against the accused about the

¶65

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

commitment of alleged offence under the POCSO Act, unless the contrary is proved. The prosecution is required to make out the foundational facts in support of its case, and only thereafter the presumption needs to be raised against the petitioner. The High Court of Kerala while considering anticipatory bail application of an accused for the offences punishable under the POCSO Act, in the case of JOY VS STATE OF KERALA - (2019)1

¶68

KLT 935 , in paragraphs 10 & 11, has observed as under:

¶69

“10. This court is not oblivious to Section 29 of the Act which contains a legislative mandate that the court shall presume commission of the offences by the accused unless the contrary is proved. Section 29 of the Act states that where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved. The court shall take into consideration the presumption under Section 29 of the Act while dealing with an application for bail filed by a person who is accused of the aforesaid offences under the Act (See State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad, (2017) 2 SCC 178 : AIR 2017 SC 630).

¶70

However, the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Act does not mean that the

¶71

11 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

prosecution version has to be accepted as gospel truth in every case. The presumption does not mean that the court cannot take into consideration the special features of a particular case. Patent absurdities or inherent infirmities or improbabilities in the prosecution version may lead to an irresistible inference of falsehood in the prosecution case. The presumption would come into play only when the prosecution is able to bring on record facts that would form the foundation for the presumption. Otherwise, all that the prosecution would be required to do is to raise some allegations against the accused and to claim that the case projected by it is true. The courts must be on guard to see that the application of the presumption, without adverting to essential facts, shall not lead to any injustice. The presumption under Section 29 of the Act is not absolute. The statutory presumption would get activated or triggered only if the prosecution proves the essential basic facts. If the accused is able to create serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case or the accused brings on record materials which would render the prosecution version highly improbable, the presumption would get weakened

¶75

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUBHASH

¶76

KASINATH MAHAJAN (DR.) VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &

¶77

ANOTHER - (2018)6 SCC 454 , while considering the issue of reverse burden vis-à-vis the human rights of an accused, in paragraph 65, has observed as under:

¶78

12 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

"65. Presumption of innocence is a human right. No doubt, placing of burden of proof on the accused in certain circumstances may be permissible but there cannot be presumption of guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before an independent forum or court. In Noor Aga v. State of Punjab [Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417 it was observed:

¶82

“33. Presumption of innocence is a human right as envisaged under Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It, however, cannot per se be equated with the fundamental right and liberty adumbrated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It, having regard to the extent thereof, would not militate against other statutory provisions (which, of course, must be read in the light of the constitutional guarantees as adumbrated in Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India).

¶83

XXX XXX XXX

¶84

35. A right to be presumed innocent, subject to the establishment of certain foundational facts and burden of proof, to a certain extent, can be placed on an accused. It must be construed having regard to the other international conventions and having regard to the fact that it has been held to be constitutional. Thus, a statute may be constitutional but a prosecution thereunder may not be held to be one. Indisputably, civil liberties and rights of citizens must be upheld.

¶85

13 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

XXX XXX XXX

¶89

43. The issue of reverse burden vis-à-vis the human rights regime must also be noticed. The approach of the common law is that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove a person guilty. Indisputably, this common law principle was subject to parliamentary legislation to the contrary. The concern now shown worldwide is that Parliaments had frequently been making inroads on the basic presumption of innocence. Unfortunately, unlike other countries no systematic study has been made in India as to how many offences are triable in the court where the legal burden is on the accused. In the United Kingdom it is stated that about 40% of the offences triable in the Crown Court appear to violate the presumption. (See “The Presumption of Innocence in English Criminal Law” [The Presumption of Innocence in English Criminal Law, 1996 Crim L Rev 306 at p. 309] .) 44. In Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) it is stated:

¶90

"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law…."

¶91

Similar provisions have been made in Article 6.2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) and Article 14.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).

¶92

XXX XXX XXX

¶93

47. We may notice that Sachs, J. in State v. Coetzee [State v. Coetzee, 1997 SCC OnLine ZACC 2 : (1997) 2

¶94

14 -

¶95

NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

LRC 593] explained the significance of the presumption of innocence in the following terms:

¶98

"There is a paradox at the heart of all criminal procedure in that the more serious the crime and the greater the public interest in securing convictions of the guilty, the more important do constitutional protections of the accused become. The starting point of any balancing enquiry where constitutional rights are concerned must be that the public interest in ensuring that innocent people are not convicted and subjected to ignominy and heavy sentences massively outweighs the public interest in ensuring that a particular criminal is brought to book. … Hence the presumption of innocence, which serves not only to protect a particular individual on trial, but to maintain public confidence in the enduring integrity and security of the legal system. Reference to the prevalence and severity of a certain crime therefore does not add anything new or special to the balancing exercise. The perniciousness of the offence is one of the givens, against which the presumption of innocence is pitted from the beginning, not a new element to be put into the scales as part of a justificatory balancing exercise. If this were not so, the ubiquity and ugliness argument could be used in relation to murder, rape, car-jacking, housebreaking, drug-smuggling, corruption … the list is unfortunately almost endless, and nothing would be left of the presumption of innocence, save, perhaps, for its relic status as a doughty defender of rights in the most trivial of cases.’

¶99

15 -

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

16. In the case of JASEER ABOOBACKER VS STATE OF

¶103

KERALA - ILR 2019 KERALA 362 , the High Court of Kerala in paragraphs 9 & 10, has observed as under:

¶104

"9. As held in Dr. Subhash Kasinath Mahajan (supra), an accused is certainly entitled to show to the Court, if he apprehends arrest, that case of the complainant was falsely motivated. If there are materials which prima facie show that the complaint is motivated for extraneous reasons, there is no reason why the court should not protect the person, who has been wrongfully accused from being arrested and detained.

¶105

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter

¶106

and also having regard to strained relationship between the parties which raises a shadow of doubt about the allegation made, I am of the opinion that the prayer made

¶107

by the petitioner for grant of regular bail is required to be answered affirmatively.

¶108

Accordingly, the following:

¶109

ORDER

¶110

The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶111

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:26176 CRL.P No. 8905 of 2025

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.160/2025 registered by Vidyaranyapura Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 65(2), 64(2)(f) of BNS, 2023, Sections 5(n), 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, subject to the following conditions:

¶114

a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶115

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly

¶116

on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court

¶117

unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶118

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

¶119

d) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission

¶120