- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7782 CRL.P No. 101654 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101654 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: MYLAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA DATTAPPANAVARA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. HONNURU VILLAGE, TQ. HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. VEERANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH HIREHADAGALI POLICE STATION, HADAGALI CIRCLE, VIJAYANAGAR, R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD. 2. KAYANNAVAR HANAMAVVA D/O. HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O. RAJAVALA VILLAGE-583216, TQ. HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLLI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C. (U/SEC. 483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY ENLARGING THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.CASE NO.959/2024 (HIREHADAGALI P.S. CRIME NO. 86/2024) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 376(2)(n), 506, 114 OF IPC AND U/S. 4, 6 OF POCSO ACT-2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE F.T.S.C-I, (RAPE AND POCSO CASES) BALLARI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7782 CRL.P No. 101654 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. A.Veeranna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and Sri Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner/accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., [483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] to grant bail in Spl.Case No.959/2024, on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C-I, Ballari in connection with Hirehadagali P.S. Crime No.0086/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (n), 506, 114 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. As per the case of prosecution, CW1 is the mother of victim and CW.2 is the victim. During the year 2024, the victim girl was aged about 17 years 6 months. The petitioner is resident of Honnuru village, developed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7782 CRL.P No. 101654 of 2025 love with the victim. On 07.05.2024 at about 11:15 a.m, the petitioner/accused entered the house of victim, committed penetrative and aggravated sexual assault on her. Again from 07.05.2024 till 28.06.2024, the petitioner/accused entered the house of victim and repeatedly committed penetrative and aggravated sexual assault on her and made criminal intimidation to eliminate her if she reveals the said aspect to anybody. Hence, a complaint was lodged by CW.1, which leads to registration of FIR and initiation of investigation. 4. During the course of investigation, accused No.1 was secured under body warrant and since then he was in judicial custody in Crime No.74/2024 in connection with POCSO case. Hence, the petitioner filed the petition for grant of bail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is falsely implicated in the case. There is no direct or indirect circumstantial evidence against him. He has not committed any offence and he is an innocent of the offence - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7782 CRL.P No. 101654 of 2025 alleged. There is a civil dispute between the families of the complainant and accused with regard to handing over of site. Thus, in order to harass the family of the petitioner, a false case has been registered. It is contended that the victim has not sustained any injury, on her person, though hymen was ruptured, but it was old. As per the FSL report, no seminal stains were detected. Further, accused Nos.2 to 7 are already enlarged on bail. Therefore, on the ground of parity also the petitioner is entitled for bail. Thus, he prayed to allow this petition. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently contended that there is prima facie case against accused No.1, who repeatedly committed aggregated and penetrative sexual assault on the victim. As per medical report, hymen is ruptured. The victim is a minor girl aged about 17 years 6 months. The allegations made against the present petitioner and accused Nos.2 to 7 are different and do not stands on the same footing. If accused Nos.1 is released on bail, he may tamper the prosecution witnesses - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7782 CRL.P No. 101654 of 2025 and hamper the trial. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. The investigating record reveals that, the victim was minor at the time of commission of offence. As per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it appears that, she has categorically stated that, accused No.1 had repeatedly committed aggregated and penetrative sexual assault on her from 07.05.2024 till 28.06.2024. A perusal of the medical record reveals that, the hymen of victim is ruptured. Admittedly, the victim is minor and the question of consent would not arise in an allegation of aggravated sexual assault, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“(POCSO” for short). The allegation made against accused Nos.2 to 7 is that, they are the relatives of accused No.1 and they have supported him for commission of offence. Therefore, the Trial Court granted bail to accused Nos.2 to 7. But the allegation made against accused No.1 stands on different footing. Thus, parity cannot be extended to accused No.1. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7782 CRL.P No. 101654 of 2025 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a dispute between the families of the accused and the first informant in respect of handing over of site and there is a delay of 51 days in lodging the complaint. These aspects are a matter of trial. At this stage, there is a prima face case against accused No.1. If accused No.1 is released on bail, he may tamper the prosecution witnesses and also threaten the victim. The charge sheet material reveals that, accused No.1 is also involved in a similar offence i.e., in Crime No.74/2024, wherein the present petitioner committed similar offence on the victim of that case. It shows that, if accused No.1 is released on bail, he may commit similar offence. Thus, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, position and status of the accused with reference to status of victim, it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the criminal petition is hereby rejected. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM, EM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34