Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2026CRL.P/16919/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka granted regular bail to an accused facing charges of murder and POCSO-related offences. The court considered the long delay in trial and the remote prospect of disposal on merits despite the heinous nature of the crime, relying on Supreme Court precedent regarding speedy trial rights.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to personal bond with sureties, regular appearance, and restrictions on leaving jurisdiction.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:29094 CRL.P No. 16919 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16919 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SUNIL KUMAR S/O MURTHY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS GARAGE MECHANIC NO 16, 4^TH FLOOR, 1^ST CROSS, ANUGRAHA LAYOUT, BELEKAHALLI, BANGALORE-59 (A1 IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)

¶11

… PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. RAKESH RAJ G., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MICO LAYOUT P S REP BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE - 560 001

¶16

SMT. DHANALAKSHMI W/O LATE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.47, SOMESHWARA COLONY BTM LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 076

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:29094 CRL.P No. 16919 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO. 1873/2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC1) AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 302, 201, 202, 377 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 6, 16, 21 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 75 OF JUVENILE AND JUSTICE ACT 2005.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

1. Accused no.1 in Special Case No.1873/2021,

¶27

pending before the Court of I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (FTSC-1), Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.164/2021 registered by Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, 377, 304 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 6, 16 and 21 of POCSO Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 483 B haratiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29094 CRL.P No. 16919 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned HCGP appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶31

3. FIR in Crime No.164/2021 was registered by Mico Layout Police Station against unknown persons initially for offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC based on the first information dated 25.08.2021 received from Smt.Nadiya, who is the mother of deceased boy. In the said case, petitioner herein was arrested on 27.08.2021 and after completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against three persons. Petitioner is arraigned as accused no.1 and first informant Smt.Nadiya is arrayed as accused no.3 in the chargesheet. The bail application filed by the petitioner before the trial Court seeking regular bail in Crl.Misc.No.3165/2025 was rejected on 11.06.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:29094 CRL.P No. 16919 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds in the petition submits that FIR has been filed after a lapse of nearly six months from the date of death of victim boy. Petitioner/accused no.1 is in custody in the present case for the last nearly five years. Except the present case, he has no other criminal case pending against him. He further submits that the offences punishable under the provisions of POCSO Act have been invoked only based on the confession statement of the petitioner/accused no.1. The case of the Prosecution depends on circumstantial evidence. Out of 57 witnesses cited in the chargesheet, only 18 witnesses have been examined as on this date. He further submits that accused nos.2 and 3 have been granted regular bail in the present case. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶36

5. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent

¶37

No.1/State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 have opposed the petition. They submit that the petitioner/accused no.1 has committed a heinous offence

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29094 CRL.P No. 16919 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

and therefore he is not entitled for the relief sought for in this petition.

¶41

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that the victim boy, who was aged 10 years was subjected to sexual assault by the petitioner and subsequently petitioner had committed his murder. He submits that the delay in trial is solely because of the noncooperation of accused persons. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶42

7. FIR in the present case was registered initially against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC based on the first information dated 25.08.2021 received from Smt.Nadiya @ Netra Nadiya, who is the mother of deceased minor boy, who was aged 10 years. In the first information, she has stated that her minor son used to stay in the house of petitioner/accused no.1 while she was going out for selling the vegetables. On 08.02.2021, she was informed by the

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29094 CRL.P No. 16919 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

petitioner/accused no.1 that her son who had gone out to a shop for purchasing some articles had not returned home. The efforts made to trace the minor boy had failed. First information was submitted belatedly after a period of more than six months based on which FIR was registered in Crime No.164/2021. During the course of investigation, petitioner/accused no.1 was taken into custody for interrogation and based on his confession, accused nos.2 and 3 were also arrested and all the accused persons were subsequently remanded to judicial custody.

¶46

8. After completing investigation, chargesheet has

¶47

been filed against three accused persons for the aforesaid offences. As per the chargesheet allegations, accused no.1 was acquainted to accused no.3-Smt. Nadiya. Accused no.1 was allegedly in love with accused no.2-Sindhu and they were living together in a rented house. In the month of August 2020, accused no.3 had left her minor son aged about 10 years in the house of accused no.1 and she used

¶48

to visit the said house occasionally to see her son.

¶49

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:29094 CRL.P No. 16919 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

9. On 07.02.2021, when accused no.1 returned

¶52

home, at about 07.30 p.m., the door of the house was closed and in spite of accused no.1 knocking the door, the deceased victim boy who was inside the house did not open the door and since he opened the door belatedly, the petitioner/accused no.1 who got angry allegedly assaulted the victim boy with his hands and legs and thereafter assaulted him with a plastic pipe and as a result, the victim boy had died. Thereafter, petitioner/accused no.1 informed about the death of victim boy to accused no.2 over phone and summoned her to his house. Subsequently, even accused no.3 was summoned to the house and was informed about the death of her minor son. Thereafter, accused no.1 shifted the dead body of minor boy in a vehicle bearing registration number KA-03-AF3343 and dumped the same at a place known as Malleshwaran Koil in Tamil Nadu.

¶53

10. Since the mother and sister of accused no.3 were repeatedly asking about the whereabouts of her

¶54

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29094 CRL.P No. 16919 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

minor son, accused no.3 on 25.08.2021 approached the Police and lodged a missing complaint stating that her son who was in the house of petitioner/accused no.1 was missing from 07.02.2021 onwards. It is under these circumstances, FIR in Crime No.164/2021 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and during the course of investigation, since the deceased boy was staying in the house of petitioner/accused no.1, Police had interrogated the petitioner/accused no.1 and based on his confession statement, other two accused persons were also arrested and after completing investigation, charge sheet had been filed against three accused persons for the aforesaid offences.

¶57

11. From the chargesheet allegations, it is seen that on 07.02.2021, petitioner/accused no.1 had initially assaulted the minor boy with his hands and legs for the reason that he had not opened the door immediately after the petitioner knocked the same and subsequently, he also assaulted the minor boy with a plastic pipe. It is not the

¶58

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:29094 CRL.P No. 16919 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

case of the Prosecution that petitioner/accused no.1 had any vengeance or motive against the minor victim boy and on the other hand, chargesheet material would go to show that the incident in question had taken place in a spur of moment and the same was not a premeditated act. The offences under the provisions of POCSO Act appear to have been invoked in the present case allegedly based on the confession statement of petitioner herein. In the confession statement, petitioner/accused no.1 allegedly had confessed that, about one and a half month prior to the alleged date of incident that had taken place on 07.02.2021, he had unnatural sex with the victim boy.

¶61

12. According to the Prosecution based on the confession of petitioner/accused no.1, the Investigation Officer had visited the spot where the petitioner had allegedly dumped the dead body of the victim boy. On enquiry, the Police learnt that Tamil Nadu Police had already recovered the body in the month of February 2021 itself and a case of Unnatural Death Report (UDR) was

¶62

10 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:29094 CRL.P No. 16919 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

registered and the dead body of victim boy was disposed of.

¶66

13. It is not in dispute that petitioner/accused no.1 has no other criminal cases pending against him as on this day. It appears that, he was earlier involved in a criminal case registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC, in the year 2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused no.1 has produced material before this Court to show that in the said case, petitioner was acquitted by the Court of XXXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru by order dated 01.12.2023.

¶67

14. Insofar as the present case is concerned, petitioner/accused no.1 is in custody for the last nearly five years. Out of the 57 chargesheet witnesses cited in the present case, only 18 chargesheet witnesses are examined as on this day. Therefore, the chances of trial being completed and the case being disposed of on merits in the near soon is very remote.

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:29094 CRL.P No. 16919 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

15. T he Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed

¶72

Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 at paragraph No.19, has observed as follows:

¶73

" 19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime".

¶74

16. Accused nos.2 and 3 have been enlarged on bail in the present case. The case of the Prosecution entirely depends on the circumstantial evidence. Considering the chargesheet material and also the period of incarceration of petitioner/accused no.1, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner/accused no.1 for grant of regular bail needs to be answered

¶75

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:29094 CRL.P No. 16919 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

affirmatively subject to appropriate conditions.

¶78

Accordingly, the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

The petition is allowed .

¶81

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in

¶82

Special Case No.1873/2021, pending before the Court of I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (FTSC-1), Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.164/2021 registered by Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, 377, 304 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 6, 16 and 21 of POCSO Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, subject t o the following conditions:

¶83

a) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, out of which, one shall be local surety to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶84

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:29094 CRL.P No. 16919 of 2025

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

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;

¶87

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

¶88

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

¶89

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.

¶90

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶91

VGR

Sunil Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Vipul Nagar Vs Union of India

Manjunath @ Manjunatha Y Vs State by

Harish Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Syed Ummar Makathiyar Vs State of Karnataka

Suraj Pavar @ Surajlakshman Pavar Vs the State of Karnataka of Aimangala P.S.

Sri. Ramegowda Vs State of Karnataka by