- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9490 CRL.A No. 100388 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100388 OF 2025 (U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT) BETWEEN: SRI. RAHUL D. S/O MALLESH NAIK, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR IN DC OFFICE, PRESENTLY NIL, R/O: KUMARANAHALLI THANDA, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR, PIN-583 101. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH HADAGALI POLICE STATION, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR, PIN-583 101. 2. KUM XXXXX (REPRESENTED BY R3), AGE: YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.04 15:17:21 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9490 CRL.A No. 100388 of 2025 3. SRI. BALARAJ NAIK, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: FARMER, R/O: KUMARANAHALLI THANDA, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR, PIN-583 101. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE HCGP FOR R1; SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT 1989, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.06.2025 IN SPL. CASE NO.682/2025 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE (F.T.S.C.-I) AT: BALLARI AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY GRANTING OF REGULAR BAIL FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(N), 354(A), 504, 506, 323, 114, 313, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC, SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(V-A) OF SC AND ST PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT 1989 R/W SECTION 4, 6, 12 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN OF SEXUAL OFFENCE 2012, REGISTERED BY THE HADAGALI POLICE STATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9490 CRL.A No. 100388 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Accused No.1 in Special Case No.682 of 2025, pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Bellari, arising out of Crime No.59 of 2025 registered by Hadagali Police Station, Vijayanagara for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 354(A), 504, 506, 323, 114, 313, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 4, 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, is before this Court in this appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeking the relief of regular bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9490 CRL.A No. 100388 of 2025 3. FIR in Crime No. 59 of 2025 was registered by Hadagali Police Station, Vijayanagara, for the aforesaid offences against the appellant and others, based on the first information dated 14.04.2025, received from the victim girl, who has stated her age as 20 years, in the first information submitted by her. During the course of investigation, the petitioner herein was arrested on 14.04.2025 and after completing investigation charge sheet has been filed against 5 persons. Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in the charge. His bail application filed before the trial Court in Special Case No.682 of 2025 was rejected on 20.06.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim through out has stated that she is aged about 20 years and having regard to the dispute in the age of the victim, the trial Court has summoned the relevant documents from the School, in which the victim had studied and after verifying the said documents, which - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9490 CRL.A No. 100388 of 2025 were submitted to the Court by the Headmaster of the School, it is recorded in the order sheet of the trial Court that the date of birth of the victim is shown as 15.05.2005 in her school records. He submits that victim girl has mentioned the same date of birth even before the doctor, who had medically examined her. He submits that petitioner aged about 26 years, working in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, has no other criminal antecedents and is in custody from 14.04.2025. Therefore, prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer made in the appeal. They submit that as per the SSLC marks card of the victim girl, her date of birth is 20.11.2007. Therefore, the victim girl is a minor. The engagement ceremony of the victim girl with the appellant was performed and thereafter, against the wishes of the victim girl, the appellant had sexual intercourse with her. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9490 CRL.A No. 100388 of 2025 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the appellant and the victim girl are closely related. In the first information submitted by the victim girl, she has stated that after the mother of appellant had met with an accident, she was staying in the house of the appellant and taking care of the mother of the appellant. Parents of the appellant thereafter had proposed for the marriage of the appellant with the victim girl and subsequently their engagement ceremony was also performed. She has alleged that after her engagement ceremony with the appellant was performed, the appellant had sexual intercourse with her, and as a result, she had conceived and her pregnancy was terminated. 7. In the first information, she has stated that her engagement ceremony with the appellate was performed on 10.11.2023. She has also stated in the first information that she is aged about 20 years. Immediately after registration of the FIR, she was taken for the purpose of her medical examination, and before the doctor who has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9490 CRL.A No. 100388 of 2025 medically examined her, she has stated that her date of birth is 15.05.2005. During the course of investigation, her SSLC marks card was collected by the Investigation Officer and as per the said document, the date of birth of the victim girl is 20.11.2007. Since there was some discrepancy with regard to the age of the victim girl, a request was made by the accused before the trial Court to summon the School Records of the victim girl, for the purpose of verification of her date of birth. Accordingly, the trial Court had summoned the records from the School, in which the victim had studied and after verifying the School Records of the victim, which was produced by the Headmaster of the said School, the trial Court has recorded in its order sheet that as per the School Records, the date of birth of the victim is 15.05.2005. If the said date of birth is taken into consideration, as on the date of the engagement of the victim with the appellant, she was a major. Allegation against the appellant is that he had - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9490 CRL.A No. 100388 of 2025 sexual intercourse with the victim girl after the engagement ceremony was performed. 8. For the purpose of attracting the offences punishable under the POCSO Act, the prosecution is required to primarily prove that the victim girl was a minor, as on the date of alleged incident. In the case on hand, a doubt arises with regard to the age of the victim girl. The victim girl has stated even before the Magistrate, who has recorded her statement under Section 183 of BNSS 2023 that she is aged about 20 years. Therefore, at this stage, the benefit in the discrepancy of the victim’s age has to be extended to the appellant, who is in custody. Investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that his prayer for grant of regular bail needs to be answered in the affirmative. According, the following: ORDER i. Criminal Appeal is allowed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9490 CRL.A No. 100388 of 2025 ii. The order dated 20.06.2025 passed in Spl. Case No. 682 of 2025 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Bellari, rejecting the bail application of the appellant filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is set aside. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail, subject to following conditions: a. The appellant shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with 2 sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; b. The appellant shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons; c. The appellant shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9490 CRL.A No. 100388 of 2025 d. The appellant shall not involve in similar offences in future. e. The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KGK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11