Santhosh Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BEML NAGAR POLICE STATION KGF - 563 101 (NOTE: AS PER THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET THE COMPLAINANT IS BEML NAGAR POLICE STATION - 563 113)

¶16

(NOTE: THE COMPLAINANT ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 PASSED IN SPL.CASE(P)13/2025 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-1(POCSO) AT KOLAR IS THAT, STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OORGAUM CIRCLE KGF)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:28061 CRL.P No. 9375 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ATTACHED HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

XXX

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 23.07.2025)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.CASE (P) NO.13/2025 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I (POCSO) AT KOLAR (CRIME NO.75/2024, BEML NAGAR POLICE STATIOIN-KGF) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 137(2), 64(2)(m), OF BNS 2023 AND SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT.

¶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 Special Case (POCSO) No.13/2025 pending before the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge FTSC-I, (POCSO) Kolar, arising out of Crime No.75/2024 registered by BEML Nagar Police Station, K.G.F, for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28061 CRL.P No. 9375 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2, who is served in the matter has remained unrepresented before this Court.

¶32

FIR in Crime No.75/2024 was registered by BEML Nagar Police Station, K.G.F, initially for the offence punishable under Section 137(2) of BNS, 2023, against unknown person based on the first information dated 15.12.2024 received from respondent No.2, who is the mother of the victim girl, who was aged about 16 years 11 months as on the date of registration of FIR. During the course of investigation, petitioner and the victim girl were traced together. Petitioner was arrested on 24.12.2024 and subsequently, remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against him for the aforesaid offences. His bail application filed before the Trial Court in Special Case (POCSO) No.13/2025 was rejected on 09.04.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶33

A perusal of the material on record would go to show that victim was found missing and the efforts made to trace her had

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28061 CRL.P No. 9375 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

failed. It is under these circumstances, mother of the victim had approached the police and based on her first information, FIR was registered against unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 137(2) of BNS, 2023. During the course of investigation, petitioner and the victim girl were traced together. The statement of the victim girl under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023, was recorded in the present case by the jurisdictional Magistrate on 28.12.2024. Victim girl has stated that she is pursuing her nursing training course and she got acquainted to the petitioner when she was studying in 10^th standard. She has stated that she and the petitioner were in love with each other and on 12.12.2024, she had accompanied the petitioner and they had together gone to a Temple and got married. Subsequently, they had traveled from Bangarpert to Benglauru in Train and stayed in the house of petitioner's uncle and they had sexual intercourse in the said house. She has also stated that thereafter they had gone to the house of petitioner's friend and stayed in the said house for a period of one week and had sexual intercourse. Police who came to the said house had brought them back to their village and thereafter she was staying in the Remand Home. Petitioner

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28061 CRL.P No. 9375 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

aged about 24 years having no other criminal antecedents is in custody for the last nearly eight months. Victim girl who was aged about 16 years and 11 months as on the date of registration of FIR has stated that she was in love with the petitioner and she had voluntarily accompanied him and had stayed with him.

¶40

The allegation now found in the charge sheet is required to be proved in a full fledged trial. The case is at the stage of fixing date for trial. The prosecution is yet to examine the 32 charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶41

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Special Case (POCSO) No.13/2025 pending before the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge FTSC-I, (POCSO) Kolar, arising out of Crime No.75/2024 registered by BEML Nagar Police Station, K.G.F, for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023, Section 6 of

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:28061 CRL.P No. 9375 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child

¶46

Marriage Act, 2006, subject to the following conditions:

¶47

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

¶48

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;

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

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.

¶52

Sd /- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶53

DN

Santhosh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh 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

Devaraj, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Tirumala Devarapalli Gangadara @ Gangadhar T Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Prasanna Kumar Vs State by

Sri.Mutturaju Vs State of Karnataka

Chinna G R Vs the State Reprsented

Gopal P M @ Gopi Vs the State of Karnataka