Sri Harsha Aliyas Parandham Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. HARSHA ALIYAS PARANDHAM S/O. NARAYANA REDDI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A. KURABARAHALLI VILLAGE D UBHANURU POST, DENANIKOTE HOBLI KRISHNAGIRI, TAMILNADU – 635 107. … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally AND: signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SUSHMA LAKSHMI BY DODDABALLAPURA WOMEN POLICE Location: High Court of REPRESENTED BY Karnataka STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13085 CRL.P No. 16224 of 2025

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

SMT. SHYALAJA

¶16

W/O KANATHARJU T R AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A THENEYURU VILLAGE SULEBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 129.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S RAGHUNANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN SPL.C NO.770/2025 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.164/2025 OF DODDABALLAPURA WOMENS POLICE STATION WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FISC - I BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE SECTION 4(1), 5(L), 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶22

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13085 CRL.P No. 16224 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner/accused is before this Court

¶26

seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime No.164/2025 of respondent-Police for the offence under Sections 4(1), 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶27

Brief facts of the case:

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that, the husband of the complainant is an agriculturist. The brother-in-law of the complainant namely Manjunatha had passed away 3

¶29

years ago and the wife of Manjunatha had also passed away 11 years ago. The couple Manjunatha and Manjula had 2 children, namely, Chaya aged 17 years and Shreyas aged 14 years. After the demise of Manjunatha and Manjula, both the children were being taken care of by the complainant and her husband. The victim girl was pursuing her second year PUC in Sri.Maruthi PU College and she was going to college from the house of the complainant. From past 20 days, she was not going to the college and

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13085 CRL.P No. 16224 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

she was staying in the house of her grandmother. When

¶33

she was asked as to why she was not going to college, she had replied that the petitioner herein was working as a receptionist in Sun Parle Public School at Thimmasandra and he used to torture her that she should love him.

¶34

In the year 2024, when the victim was studying in her first PUC, he had taken her to the room at Hoskote and had committed sexual intercourse. Even after completion of first PUC and during her holidays, he used to commit sexual intercourse on several occasions. Further, it is alleged that the petitioner herein was demanding her to give jewels in order to conceal the fact of sexual intercourse with him. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered against the petitioner.

¶35

Heard Sri.Nanjunda Gowda M.R., learned

¶36

counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13085 CRL.P No. 16224 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

and Sri.S.Raghunandan, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶40

It is the submission of the learned counsel for

¶41

the petitioner that, the victim has completed 18 years and negotiation was going on between the family members to perform the marriage of the victim with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition.

¶42

On the other hand , learned counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions of paternal parents of victim submitted that it is true that the marriage would be solemnized between the petitioner and the victim. Hence, the petition may be allowed and he may be enlarged on bail.

¶43

Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶44

Pleader for respondent No.1-State vehemently objected the said development and further submitted that, merely

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13085 CRL.P No. 16224 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

because the parties have compromised, the matter would not be absolved and the criminality cannot be closed. Admittedly, the victim was minor at the time of the incident and further, the petitioner had committed sexual assault on her on several times. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submissions, he prays to reject the petition.

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the respective

¶49

parties and perused the averments of the entire charge sheet made available by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which would indicate that both the victim and the petitioner were loving each other and several text messages were taken place between them and several phone calls were made reciprocally. It appears that the date of birth of the victim is disputed. Hence, it is appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:13085 CRL.P No. 16224 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶56

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in bail in Crime No.164/2025 of respondent-Police for the offence under Sections 4(1), 5(L) and 6 of

¶57

the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶58

(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶59

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before

¶60

the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶61

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:13085 CRL.P No. 16224 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

(v) The petitioner shall not involve in

¶64

any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶65

In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶66

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶67

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri Harsha Aliyas Parandham v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Harsha Aliyas Parandham v. the 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

Sunil @ Suni @ Sunil. a Vs the State of Karnataka

Mandappa G Vs State of Karnataka

Abbas Khan @ Abbas Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Meenakshi Vs State by Anekal Police Station.

Ganesha M v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sharan @ Akash Bhavan Sharan, Vs the State of Karnataka