- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47568 CRL.A No. 1647 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1647 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: KAISAR PASHA S/O ALLABAKSH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT NEAR BGM KALYANA MANTAPA, T.BEGURU, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SHIVAMMA D., ADV. FOR SRI. M. KRISHNE GOWDA M., ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE PS. RPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. VICTIM REPTD. BY HER GRAND MOTHER, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, YELLAMMA W/O GOVINDA THONACHINAKUPPE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA RURAL P.S., BANGALORE-562123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1, R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47568 CRL.A No. 1647 of 2025 THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II, AT BENGALURU RURAL IN CRL.MISC.NO.1066/2025 DATED 24.06.2025 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.100/2025 NOW IN SPL.C NO.360/2025 FOR THE O/U/S 67B OF I.T ACT 2008 U/S 70(1) OF BNS 2023, U/S 4,6,8,10,12 OF POCSO ACT AND U/S 3(2) (V) SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989, PENDING BEFORE ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II, AT BENGALURU RURAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant-Kaiser Pasha who is accused No.4 before the trial Court, has preferred this appeal against the order dated 24.06.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1066/2025 by the Additional District Sessions Judge FTSC-II, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, Nelamangala - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47568 CRL.A No. 1647 of 2025 Police have registered the case in Crime No.100/2025 against the accused 1 to 3 for the offence under section 70(1) of BNS, 2023, sections 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. 4. After investigation, IO has submitted the charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 for the alleged commission of offences under section 70(1) of BNS, 2023, sections 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and section 67(B) of Information Technology Act, 2008. 5. The present appellant has filed a bail application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, same came to be rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant Smt. Shivamma.D for Sri M.Krishne Gowda would submit that the concerned police have completed the investigation and filed the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47568 CRL.A No. 1647 of 2025 charge sheet. The appellant is not required for further investigation. The appellant was arrested on 12.03.2025 and he is in judicial custody for more than 7 months. The trial court has already recorded the statement of the victim. She has not stated the name of this appellant/accused. The DNA report is also not in favour of prosecution. On all these grounds, it is sought for allowing this appeal. 7. As against this, the Learned HCGP would submit that the Learned Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the materials on record that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and sought for dismissal of this appeal. 8. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. On perusal of the statement of victim, she has stated the names of Kiran and Kaiser who is the appellant herein. Hence, there is no force in the argument submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47568 CRL.A No. 1647 of 2025 alleged commission of offence is heinous in nature. Considering the nature and gravity of offence, I do not find any error/illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9