Dismissed¶48

Subrata Bera v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2026CRL.P/11453/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail refused — POCSO/BNS/IT Act offences against minor girl aged 15 years 10 months; victim pregnant 5 weeks as on 17.03.2025; gravity of accusations; risk of deterring witnesses despite chargesheet filed; Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan (2022) 9 SCC 269 distinguished; Crime No. 96/2025 HAL Police Station; Spl. C. No. 947/2025 FTSC-5 Bangalore; CRL.P No. 11453 of 2025; Karnataka High Court (E.S.INDIRESH, J.), 22.04.2026; amicus curiae fee Rs.10,000/-.

What did the court decide?

No bail; petition dismissed. Honorarium of Rs.10,000/- directed to be paid to the learned Amicus Curiae by the Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru. ¶48

Subrata Bera Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No bail; petition dismissed. Honorarium of Rs.10,000/- directed to be paid to the learned Amicus Curiae by the Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an accused in Crime No. 96/2025 of HAL Police Station, Bengaluru (Spl. C. No. 947/2025, FTSC-5, Bangalore), charged under Section 65(1) of BNS r/w Sections 4(2), 6 and 15(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 67(B) of Information Technology Act, 2000, should be enlarged on bail.

¶26

Court's answer

Bail refused: taking into consideration the age of the victim (about 15 years 10 months) and the grave nature and gravity of the accusations against the petitioner, the judgment relied upon by the learned Amicus Curiae (Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 9 SCC 269) cannot be accepted to enlarge him on bail; accordingly the petition is dismissed.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

Considering the age of the victim and that the accused is 28 years old, even though the chargesheet is filed in the proceedings, the petitioner may deter the witnesses; therefore the petition does not survive for consideration.

¶43

Key takeaways

The service of the learned Amicus Curiae placed on record; the Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru directed to pay the learned Amicus Curiae Rs.10,000/- as fee, and a copy of the order to be made available to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru.obiter¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS by the accused (aged 28 years) in Crime No. 96/2025 of HAL Police Station, Bengaluru (Spl. C. No. 947/2025, Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-5, Bangalore) for offences punishable under Section 65(1) of BNS r/w Sections 4(2), 6 and 15(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 67(B) of Information Technology Act, 2000 — dismissed. The victim was aged about 15 years 10 months and, as per the complaint, pregnant of 5 weeks as on 17.03.2025; the accusations were held grave in nature. Although the chargesheet had been filed, the Court found that the petitioner may deter the witnesses. The parameters in Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 9 SCC 269, pressed by the learned Amicus Curiae, were held inapplicable on the facts. The Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru was directed to pay the learned Amicus Curiae Rs.10,000/- as fee.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21861 CRL.P No. 11453 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11453 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUBRATA BERA S/O NITAI BERA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT YUSUFS HOUSE, 1^ST CROSS NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE AMEDKAR NAGARA, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 047

¶9

PERMANENTLY R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE HATGOPALPUR POST, EAST MIDNAPORE DISTRICT WEST BENGAL

¶10

(BY SRI. MUNIRAJA M, AMICUS CURIAE)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HAL P.S REP. BY SPP BENGALURU-560 001

¶15

KAJAL DAS S/O SUDHINDRA DAS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT GROUND FLOOR

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21861 CRL.P No. 11453 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

HOMPTON COURT BEHIND RASAGANGA HOTEL BELLANDUR BENGALURU-560 103

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. VARSHITHA A/W SRI. DEEPAK, ADVOCATES FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C (FILED UNDER SECTION 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.947/2025 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.96/2025 OF RESPONDENT HAL POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 65(1) OF BNS R/W SECTION 4(2) AND 6, 15(1) OF POCSO R/W SECTION 67(B) OF IT ACT 2000, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-5 AT BANGALORE.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS,

¶26

seeking bail by the petitioner in respect of Crime No. 96/2025 of HAL Police Station, Bengaluru (Spl. C. No. 947/ 2025) for the offence punishable under Sections 65(1) of

¶27

BNS read with Sections 4(2), 6 and 15(1) of POCSO Act,

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21861 CRL.P No. 11453 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

2012 and Section 67(B) of Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶31

Sri. Muniraju, is appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Court to represent the petitioner, as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was not representing in the matter regularly.

¶32

Sri. Muniraju, learned Amicus Curiae contended that the incident happened on 22.11.2012 and there is delay of more than 3 to 4 months in lodging the complaint and the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident itself is questionable and therefore learned Amicus Curiae submitted that, the petitioner has to be enlarged on bail. In this regard, by referring to the medical legal examination report of sexual violence, learned Amicus Curiae contented that, the competent persons - guardians of the victim have not signed the said document. Therefore he sought for interference of this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21861 CRL.P No. 11453 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Y Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in

¶36

(2022) 9 SCC 269 . While referring to paragraph No. 12 of the above judgment, learned Amicus Curiae argued that, the parameters for granting or refusal of bail has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and applying the aforementioned principles to the case on hand, it is argued by Sri. Muniraju, learned Amicus Curiae that the petitioner has to be enlarged on bail.

¶37

Per contra, Smt. Varshitha appearing for Sri. Deepak Bhaskar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Smt. Waheeda M.M. learned HCGP appearing for the respondent – State submitted that since heinous crime has been committed against the victim, who is aged about 15 years 10 months old, no bail could be granted in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel representing the respondents that the petitioner herein has committed a heinous crime against a minor which is against the societal interests and they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21861 CRL.P No. 11453 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

5. Having taken notice of the submissions made

¶41

by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 96/2025 of HAL Police Station, Bengaluru , for the offences punishable under Section 65(1) of BNS read with Sections 4(2), 6 and 15(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 67(B) of Information Technology Act, 2000. A careful consideration of the petition papers would indicate that the victim is aged about 15 years 10 months. It is also forthcoming from the petition papers that the victim is pregnant of 5 weeks as on 17.03.2025 as per the complaint. Taking into consideration the material on record, the alleged offences

¶42

are non-bailable in nature and the case of the complainant was that the petitioner and the victim intended to marry and also it is alleged that the petitioner had taken the naked photograph of the victim. Taking into consideration

¶43

the age of the victim and also the age of the accused is 28 years, I am of the view that though chargesheet is filed in the aforementioned proceedings, the petitioner may deter

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:21861 CRL.P No. 11453 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

the witnesses and therefore I am of the view that the petition does not survive for consideration.

¶48

Insofar as the judgment referred to by the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner, I have carefully examined the grounds stated in the said judgment on which bail has to be granted or not. Taking into consideration, that the victim is aged about 15 years and 10 months and also, the nature and gravity of the accusation made against the petitioner is grave in nature. Therefore, I am of the view that the judgment referred to by the learned Amicus Curiae cannot be accepted to enlarge him on bail. Accordingly petition is dismissed.

¶49

The service rendered by the learned Amicus

¶50

Curiae is placed on record and I am of the view that the Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru be directed to pay the learned Amicus Curiae a sum of Rs.10,000/- as fee for assisting the Court in this petition.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:21861 CRL.P No. 11453 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

8. Copy of this order be made available to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru.

¶55

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶56

LRS

¶57