Sri Naveen, Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GOWRIBIDANUR RURAL POLICE STATION CHIKKABALLAPUR REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

SMT. GANGAPPA S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT CHIGATAGERE VILLAGE GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101 …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:6984 CRL.P No. 16938 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.SC.NO.138/2025 IN CR.NO.192/2025 OF GOWRIBIDANUR RURAL P.S., CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT (1^ST RESPONDENT HEREIN) PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(n),506 OF IPC, UNDER SECTION 5(n),5(l),6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed by the sole accused under Section

¶24

483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Special.S.C.No.138/2025 arising out of Crime No.192/2025 of Gowribidanur Rural Police Station pending on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur registered for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC and Sections 5(n), 5(l), 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶26

High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 –State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6984 CRL.P No. 16938 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the alleged incident has taken place in September -2023 and the complaint has been filed on 23.06.2025 and there is delay in filing the complaint. The victim has been examined by the doctor on 23.06.2025. The victim has not stated anything regarding sexual intercourse by the petitioner on her in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. The petitioner is married man having a wife and two minor children. The wife of the petitioner is working in garment factory. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶30

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 –State would contend that the victim girl was aged 17 years as on the date of alleged offence. On the basis of the statement of the victim girl, a case has been registered against the petitioner. In the said statement, the victim girl has specifically stated the acts of this petitioner having sexual intercourse on her in stadium gym room several times. The petitioner is Uncle in relation to the victim girl. The doctor who has examined the victim girl has noted that her hymen is not intact and opined that there might be chances of

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:6984 CRL.P No. 16938 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

intercourse. The statement of C.W.26 –Narsimhmurthi indicate the acts of this petitioner even approaching the victim girl, even after they shifted to some other village. The charge sheet materials show prima facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. With this, she prayed to reject the petition.

¶35

Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

¶36

As per charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is

¶37

that the petitioner is related to the victim girl and in the year 2023 when victim girl was studying in Municipal College in PUC, at that time the petitioner used to take her in his auto rickshaw to the college. That on 12.09.2023 at about 07.00a.m., the petitioner took the victim girl in his auto rickshaw near Netaji Stadium and at about 08.00 a.m. in the gym room, the petitioner stating that he is loving her had sexual intercourse and thereafter, had sexual intercourse in the same place several times. Date of birth of the victim girl is 16.12.2007. The statement of the victim girl indicates that the petitioner is cousin brother of her father. It further indicated that on

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6984 CRL.P No. 16938 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

12.09.2023 the petitioner took the victim girl in his auto rickshaw to stadium and in the gym room he gave her eatables and at about 08.00 a.m. he gave her life threat in the gym room and had forcible sexual intercourse on her. Thereafter, also he had sexual intercourse on her in the same place several times. The said aspect came to the knowledge of the parents of the Victim girl and villagers. People of the village started talking in that regard and therefore, the petitioner's mother and elder sister came to the house of the victim girl and quarreled with them and therefore, the victim girl and her family members shifted to Mittenahalli Village and residing in rented residence. The petitioner also came to Mittenahalli Village and tried to contact her and victim girl intimated the same to her parents. Thereafter, they shifted from Mittenahalli Village to Udumalodu Grama and started residing in a house. The petitioner coming to know the same on 05.06.2025 came there and gave phone to the victim girl and she intimated the said aspect to her mother. The mother of the victim took her to Chikkaballapur District Women Unit and there the victim girl was sent to children's home. The victim girl's statement has been recorded and it has been registered in Crime No.198/2025. The

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6984 CRL.P No. 16938 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

statement of the victim girl has also been recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. The petitioner is stated to be married man having wife and two children. In spite of he being married man, he was following the victim girl and had sexual intercourse with her. The doctor who examined the victim girl had noted that hymen of the victim girl is not intact and opened that there might be chances of intercourse. Considering the above aspects, the charge sheet materials indicate that there is prima facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. In order to substantiate that there was quarrel between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 -father of the victim girl, no materials are placed on record.

¶44

Considering the above, the petitioner has not made

¶45

out any case for grant of bail. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶47

DSP

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri Naveen, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Naveen, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meda Vishnuvardhan Reddy @ Vishnu Vs State of Karnataka

Sudeep S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nawaz Pasha @ Lx Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahaveer Singh Vs State by Robertsonpet Police Station

Rajib Rabidas Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Gayathri.P Vs the State by Ccb Police Station.