Mr Ramesh Vs State by

Digitally AND: signed by SREEDHARAN 1. STATE BY BANGALORE SUSHMA INSPECTOR OF POLICE LAKSHMI Location: High RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA, Court of Karnataka REPRESENTED THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:12987 CRL.P No. 17009 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

MR. ESWARAPPA

¶17

S/O MR. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF INDEDEVARAHALLI, NAGATHIHALLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DIST. PIN: 577 527.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. B LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 BNNS PRAYING TO GRANT

¶21

THE RELIEF OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.296/2025 REGISTERED BY SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 64(2)(m) OF THE BNS AND SECTION 6 OF THE POCSO ACT 2012 AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:12987 CRL.P No. 17009 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner / accused No.1, is before this Court seeking for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.296/2025 of respondent-police for the offences punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS, 2023’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’).

¶29

Brief facts of the case:

¶30

The case of the prosecution is that, a complaint came to be registered on 08.10.2025 before the respondent – Police stating that she was residing along with her parents and brother in the address stated in the complaint. Her parents were doing coolie work for their livelihood. She had completed her early education in her village. Thereafter, the family members have decided to perform her marriage with their relative. The petitioner being the uncle of the minor, used to visit the house of the

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:12987 CRL.P No. 17009 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

victim often and she also used to go to his house on festivals. Such being the fact, in the month of March, 2024, she had been to her uncle’s house. In the said house, only the victim and the petitioner were present. Taking advantage of the fact that nobody was present in the house, the petitioner committed sexual assault on the victim. It is further stated that she had been subjected to sexual assault on many occasions. In the month of June, she had undergone pregnancy test, she was diagnosed as pregnant. Thereafter, she had informed the said fact to the petitioner, he has promised that he would marry her after she attains the age of 18 years. Accordingly, and on 12.09.2025, the petitioner married her. Both were happily residing together. However, the Child Welfare Committee examined her on 01.10.2025 and sent her to the Rural Police Station to lodge a complaint. Hence, the complaint. The matter is under investigation.

¶34

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12987 CRL.P No. 17009 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Heard Mr. Pramod Chandra I.S., learned

¶37

counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Lakshman, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Manjunatha L.K., learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the victim and the petitioner are the relatives, married each other. The family members have voluntarily agreed upon the marriage after the victim attained the age of majority. If the petitioner is sent to judicial custody, certainly, hardship would be caused to the family members and their reputation would be fallen to the ground. In fact, the pregnancy has not been established/proved on proper medical examination. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail, by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶39

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:12987 CRL.P No. 17009 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶42

Pleader for respondent No.1 - State vehemently submitted that the petitioner being a major, had sexually assaulted the victim knowingly that she was a minor and made her to become pregnant. Thereafter, he is stated to have married her. However, as on the date of the alleged sexual assault, no doubt, she was a minor. Therefore, the application has to be rejected. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State prays to reject the petition.

¶43

Similarly, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2 vehemently requested the Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the complaint. It appears that the complainant is the wife of the petitioner. The family members have performed her marriage with the petitioner after attaining the age of majority. In order

¶45

7 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:12987 CRL.P No. 17009 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

to maintain quietus between the family members, in my considered view, it is appropriate to grant anticipatory bail, considering it as rarest of rare case.

¶49

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶52

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.296/2025 of respondent-police for the offences stated supra, o n 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.

¶53

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of one month from today to execute personal bond and also to furnish surety.

¶54

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶55

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:12987 CRL.P No. 17009 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

(v) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper

¶58

the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶59

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.

¶60

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶61

BSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Mr Ramesh v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Ramesh v. State by

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

Sri Venkataravana M v @ Giri Vs the State of Karnataka

Syed Anees @ Hari Vs the State of Karnataka by

Ankanayaka H S @ Ankappa Vs State by

Mr.Parasuram, Vs the State of Karnataka by Vidyanagara Police Station

Punitha @ Kulla Puni Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Waheed Vs State of Karnataka