- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8720 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102145 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: KENCHAPPA @ KENCHANA GOUDA S/O. YAMANAPPA GOUDAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O. BADIMANAL VILLAGE-583280, KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR R. GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH HANUMASAGARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. 2. BHIMAVVA W/O. BHIMAPPA HANAKUNTI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BADIMANAL VILLAGE, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-583280. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. SHIVALEELA ARAHUNASI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN SPC.SC.POCSO NO.1/2025 DATED 12.03.2025 PENDING ON ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC- 1 AT KOPPAL (CRIME NO.155/2024 REGISTERED BY HANUMASAGAR POLICE STATION) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78, 65(1), 70(2), 108 OF BNS AND SECTION 4 AND 5 (i) (ii) READ WITH SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 OF IPC AND SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT 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:8720 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri.Rajashekar R.Gunjalli, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Kirtilata Patil, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and Mrs. Shivaleela Arahunsi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner-accused No.2 has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., [483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] to grant bail in Crime No.155/2024 of Hanumasagar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 78, 65(1),70(2), 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS, 2023’) and Sections 4, 5(i)(ii) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 pending on the file of learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1 at Koppal in Spl. Case POCSO No.1/2025 dated 12.03.2025. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8720 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2025 The deceased victim, who was minor girl aged 16 years and the petitioner-accused No.1 were residents of same village. The deceased was studying at 9th standard in her village. Prior to incident, since couple of months, accused Nos.1 and 2 were following the victim girl when she was going to her school. On 24.08.2024 and 31.08.2024, accused Nos.1 and 2 committed aggravated and penetrative sexual assault on her. Hence, she became pregnant. When it was disclosed by the victim to accused Nos.1 and 2, on 23.11.2024, when she was returning from school, in front of Daba near Badimanal Cross, both accused abetted the victim girl to commit suicide in order to protect reputation of her family and also avoid registration of criminal case against them. In consequence of their abetment, on the same day at 23.11.2024, at around 6 p.m. victim consumed poisonous substance. Hence, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Hanumanal, for treatment. For higher treatment, she was shifted to District Hospital, Koppal and admitted as inpatient. On 25.11.2024, the doctor confirmed that victim was pregnant. Upon enquiry, the victim disclosed that accused - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8720 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2025 Nos.1 and 2 were responsible for her pregnancy. On 29.11.2024, she was aborted. During the course of treatment i.e., 01.12.2024 at about 11.53 a.m., victim died in the hospital. Hence, the first informant lodged a complaint which leads to registration of FIR and investigation. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. 4. As per the material on record, it appears that after 23.11.2024 till 01.04.2025, the condition of the victim was very critical. As per the medical report, the victim was subjected for medical examination and it reveals that hymen was ruptured (old) and “Possibility of remote sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out.” 5. Samples of DNA profile of victim, fetus and accused persons were sent for medical analysis. As per the DNA profile results of samples sent, it is found that; “1. Victim(deceased) from whom sternum bone was collected and sent in item No.1 of DNA/1332/2024 is included from being the contributor of retained - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8720 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2025 products of conception containing blood clots sent in item No.1 of DNA/1304/2024. Hence, the material relationship of retained products of conception sent in item No.1 of DNA/1304/2024 could not be established due to the lack of embryonic content. 2) Since there was lack of embryonic content in the products of conception sent in item No.1 of DNA/1304/2024, the paternal relationship cannot be established. 3) The DNA profile results of Nagraj@Nagesh s/o Mariyappa Pujar and Kenchappa @ Kenchanagouda S/o Yamanurappa Goudar sample blood sent in item Nos.1 and 1a of DNA/274/2025 is shown in the enclosed table as annexure-I.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that DNA profile does not match with the profile of deceased. Hence, petitioner-accused No.2 is falsely implicated in the case. 7. In the instant case, the age of the victim was 15 years 8 months. The DNA report discloses that the petitioner is not a biological father of fetus. However, in the instant case, the allegations made by the prosecution witnesses - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8720 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2025 more particularly, CW7 and CW8 appears that accused Nos.1 and 2 were in contact with victim and they were frequently, sexually assaulted her and on two occasions they committed aggravated penetrative assault on her. Thus, she became pregnant. This abetted her to commit suicide. Hence, she consumed poison and almost nine days she was in ICU. It shows that prima facie, the petitioner is involved in the offence. If the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses, more particularly CWs.1, 7 and 8. Therefore, considering the nature of offence, it is just and necessary to reject the bail petition. 8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is rejected. NOTE: The above observation is made only for disposal of this petition. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE HMB, CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27