- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11626 CRL.A No. 40 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. VENKATESH @ DHANU S/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/AT KULUME KEMPALINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SONDEKOPPA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL-562 123. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VINOD N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY KUDUR POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. GIRIJA W/O VENKATESH R.S., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT RANGENAHALLI SOLURU HOBLI RAMANAGARA – 562 159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. RANGANATHA K., ADVOCATE FOR R2 – [ABSENT]) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11626 CRL.A No. 40 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER THAT IS ACCUSED ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.108/2024 THAT IS CRIME NO.134/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, RAMANAGARA REGISTERED BY THE KUDURU P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 363 OF IPC AND SECTION 12 OF POCSO ACT 2012 AND SECTION 3(2)(v)a OF SC/ST (PA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The factual matrix of the case of prosecution is that C.W.2 victim girl was minor daughter of C.Ws.1 and 3 and both the accused as well as victim girl were loving each other. On 30.04.2024 at about 11.00 a.m. in the morning, secured C.W.2 minor victim-girl in the outskirts of the Village and then kidnapped by taking her on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-52-R- 5089 belonging to C.W.8 and took her to a rented house of C.Ws.5 and 6 giving the false information that C.W.2 as his younger sister having come for spending college vacation holidays and from 05.05.2024 to 07.05.2024 retained in his - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11626 CRL.A No. 40 of 2025 house with an intention to sexually assault and harass her and thereby touched her body parts in the sexual mature, knowing fully well that complainant belongs to Hindu Aadi Karnataka Sub-caste and committed the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC, Section 12 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PA) Amendment Act, 2015. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there is no specific allegation, except the allegation that he took her and pretended that she is his sister and even in the 164 statement before the learned Magistrate also, in order to attract offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act, nothing is stated by the victim. Hence, ingredients of the offence under Section 363 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act do not attract. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1- State would contend that in 164 statement, the victim says that Police have recorded the statement of the victim and she says that she was taken to different house till completion of age of 18 since she was minor and such statement was made by the victim. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11626 CRL.A No. 40 of 2025 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-State and having perused the contents of statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., though nothing is stated, invoked offence under Section 363 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act. The material discloses that both of them were loving each other and the accused taken her to house of C.Ws.5 and 6, wherein the accused pretended her as his younger sister and no allegation of sexual assault. Having taken note of factual aspects of the case and considering the material on record, it is a fit case for granting bail invoking the discretion and whether the offences invoked against the appellant attracts or not i.e., offence under Section 363 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act to be considered at the time of trial and prima facie, the material does not disclose the ingredients of offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for bail, subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appellant shall execute personal a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11626 CRL.A No. 40 of 2025 only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (ii) The appellant shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The appellant shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court, till the case registered against him is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46