Mantu Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mantu Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted: petitioner enlarged on bail in CC No.75394/2025 (Crime No.119/2025, Marathahalli P.S.) on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety for the like sum, subject to conditions including no contact with or threat to the victim and her family, no tampering with witnesses, appearance on all hearing dates, no fresh offences, and furnishing of current and permanent address; liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation on breach.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, sole accused in CC No.75394/2025 arising out of Crime No.119/2025 of Marathahalli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 64, 127(2), 238, 329(4), 351, 352 of BNS 2023, should be enlarged on regular bail.

Court's answer

The averments of the complaint, despite the gravity alleged, do not justify denial of bail; it is appropriate to grant bail by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

Ratio / Principle

Petition allowed: petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail in CC No.75394/2025 arising out of Crime No.119/2025 of Marathahalli Police Station on executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Key takeaways

Bail conditioned: petitioner shall not meet, influence or threaten the victim and her family members; shall not threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses or hamper Court proceedings; shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates; shall not commit similar or other offences till disposal; and shall furnish current and permanent address details; liberty reserved to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail on violation of any condition.ratio¶order-iii

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (S Rachaiah J), CRL.P No. 453 of 2026 (filed under S.439 Cr.P.C / S.483 BNSS), decided 04.03.2026 — Regular bail granted. Petitioner, sole accused in CC No.75394/2025 arising out of Crime No.119/2025 of Marathahalli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 64, 127(2), 238, 329(4), 351, 352 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023, sought regular bail. Complaint alleged that on 07.01.2025 the petitioner wrongfully restrained the complainant, dragged her inside her house and committed sexual intercourse with her, recording a video of about 14 seconds showing her face; he allegedly continued stalking and threatening her by phone, and on 12.02.2025 stalked, wrongfully restrained and groped her and attempted to rob her phone, following which the complaint was lodged on 04.03.2025 (delayed from 07.01.2025, after deliberations with her family). State opposed bail citing gravity of the offence, circulation of the video, and risk of absconding as the petitioner resides in Bihar. The Court held that the averments of the complaint would not inspire denial of bail and granted bail by imposing suitable conditions: personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety for the like sum; petitioner not to meet, influence or threaten the victim and her family; not to threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses; to appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates; not to commit similar or other offences till disposal; and to furnish current and permanent address details; liberty reserved to the prosecution to file for cancellation of bail on violation of any condition.

NC: 2026:KHC:13188 CRL.P No. 453 of 2026

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 453 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC) /

483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

MANTU KUMAR

S/O NAGESHWAR THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT GRAM MANJHIDIH, POST PIRRA THANA CHANDAN,

KATORIA, BANKA,

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

BIHAR 813106 ALSO AT SAVKAR CHAI POINT, NEAR SOBHA BUNGALOW, DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560103.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. N PADMAVATHI, ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13188 CRL.P No. 453 of 2026

HC-KAR

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION,

REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CC.NO.75394/2025 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.119/2025 BY THE MARATHAHALLI P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 64, 127(2), 238, 329(4), 351, 352 OF BNS, 2023.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13188 CRL.P No. 453 of 2026

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is sole accused in CC No.75394/2025 arising out of Crime No.119/2025 of Marathahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 127(2), 238, 329(4), 351, 352 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail.

The complainant has lodged a complaint stating that, on 07.01.2025 at about 1.30 p.m., when the complainant was drying clothes near her house, the petitioner came and caught hold of her arm and wrongfully restrained her. Further, he has dragged her inside the house. It is further alleged that, after trespassing into the house, the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with her.

It is further stated in the complaint that, after the incident of sexual intercourse, she was in a state of helplessness and she had been exhausted due to physically resisting him. It is stated that, she was unable

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13188 CRL.P No. 453 of 2026

HC-KAR

to speak or move from the said place. Taking advantage of the said situation, the petitioner recorded a video and again committed rape on her.

It is further alleged that, he had focused the camera for the said act and recorded a video. The said video is about 14 seconds in duration and it shows the face of the complainant.

It is further stated that, on 07.01.2025, she had brought to the knowledge of her husband about the incident. Due to fear of societal ostracization, the complainant and her husband mutually decided not to file a police complaint. Her husband and the complainant confronted the petitioner and warned him not to contact her further. In spite of the said warning, the petitioner herein was continuing to stalk the complainant and call over phone by using various phone numbers, and verbally abusing and threatening her, and also trying to defame her in the society.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13188 CRL.P No. 453 of 2026

HC-KAR

On 12.02.2025 at about 9.30 p.m., when the

complainant was returning from her workplace, the petitioner stalked her, and restrained her wrongfully. Then, the complainant had crossed the road to run away from the petitioner, however, the petitioner had followed her, caught hold of her and again wrongfully restrained her. The petitioner groped her body and attempted to rob her phone. Hence, the complainant has lodged the complaint before the respondent–police.

Based on the said complaint lodged on 04.03.2025, the same came to be registered by the respondent/police in Crime No.119/2025.

The submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that, the petitioner is an innocent of the alleged offence. He was working at Savkar Tea shop situated behind the house of the complainant, as a result of which, he had acquainted with the complainant.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13188 CRL.P No. 453 of 2026

HC-KAR

It is further submitted that though there are

certain allegations are made against the petitioner, the fact remains that, the said allegations are baseless and bald. In fact, the investigation would indicate the real picture of the case. The petitioner has not committed any offences as stated in the complaint. The petitioner is aged about 25 years and he is the earning member of the family. The entire family is depending on his income. He came from Bihar and working at a tea stall in Bengaluru. If the petitioner may be enlarged on bail, he would abide conditions to be imposed by this Court. Making such submission, he prayed to allow the petition.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State vehemently submitted that the narrations and averments of the complaint would indicate the gravity of the offence. The petitioner being a fickle-minded person forcibly entered into the house of the informant and committed rape. The said act has been

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13188 CRL.P No. 453 of 2026

HC-KAR

video recorded, and it has been circulated through mobile phone in order to defame the dignity of the complainant.

It is further submitted that, if the petitioner is granted bail, there may be chances of absconding from the case, as he is the resident of Bihar. Hence, the petition has to be rejected. Making such submission, he prayed to reject the petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the complaint.

It appears that the complainant has been allegedly raped and the said episode has been videographed by the petitioner. Though the incident had occurred on 07.01.2025, she has not chosen to lodge a complaint at the earliest. However, the complaint came to be registered on 04.03.2025 after due deliberations and discussions with her family members. The averments of the complaint would indicate that on several occasions, the petitioner had tried to reach her for sexual favour.

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:13188 CRL.P No. 453 of 2026

HC-KAR

Be that as it may, the averments of the complaint would not inspire to deny the bail. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions, that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed.

ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail CC No.75394/2025 arising out of Crime No.119/2025 of Marathahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 127(2), 238, 329(4), 351, 352 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023, on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

iii) The petitioner shall not try to meet, influence or threaten the victim and her family members at any cost.

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:13188 CRL.P No. 453 of 2026

HC-KAR

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

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

vi) The petitioner shall not commit any similar or any other criminal cases till disposal of the case.

vii) The petitioner shall furnish the current address and also permanent address details as per law.

In case, 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.

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

NM/BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41