- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12859 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. VINAY K.N. S/O K.L.NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO-111, KOUSTUBAM, NEAR PRESTIGE LAKE RIDGE APARTMENT, GUBBALALA, JAYANAGARA HOUSING SOCIETY, BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE, BENGALURU-560 062. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF KORANAKUDIGE, GANDHAGHATTA, SRINGERI-577 139, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.B.K.SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THALAGATTAPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI. MANJULA M. AGED 30 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF MAHDI, R/AT #48, 3RD CROSS, MG LAYOUT, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 HALAGEVADERAHALLI, RR NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. NAMAN VANKDARI M., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.298/2025, REGISTERED BY THE THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION, FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 69, 351(2) R/W 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CAV ORDER 1. The instant petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.1 in Crime No.298/2025 registered by Thalaghattapura Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. Initially a Zero FIR came to be registered in Crime No.0002/2025 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 69, 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023, and after verification of jurisdiction, the matter was transferred to Thalaghattapura Police Station, Bengaluru, where it was re-registered as Crime No.298/2025. The Investigating Officer thereafter submitted the preliminary report before the learned 46th ACMM Court, Bengaluru. 4. The complaint was lodged on 10.08.2025 by one Smt. Manjula D/o Mahadev, aged about 30 years., against the petitioner and another accused. The petitioner was arrested on 11.08.2025, and since then, he has been in judicial custody. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 5. The brief facts of the case:- It is alleged that, the complainant came in contact with the petitioner Vinay K.N. at Gulf Pub, Kattriguppe on 09.11.2024 through her friend Sonu. Thereafter, they became acquainted through Instagram, exchanged mobile numbers, and frequently communicated over phone and social media. It is alleged that the petitioner induced the complainant to believe that he would marry her and, on that assurance, established physical relationship with her on several occasions at his residence. It is further alleged that on each such occasion, the petitioner procured and compelled her to consume an “I-pill” tablet, and once even insisted that she record a video of herself consuming it under threat that he would otherwise not marry her. Subsequently, the petitioner allegedly refused to marry the complainant, citing caste difference, and sent her messages stating that their relationship would not work. When the complainant and her brother contacted the petitioner’s brother-in-law i.e., accused no.2, it is alleged that he threatened them with - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 dire consequences. The complainant later met the petitioner’s parents at Sringeri, who also declined the proposal on the ground of caste difference, causing her severe mental distress and emotional trauma, for which she underwent medical treatment. 6. The petitioner had earlier approached the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, seeking regular bail in Crl. Misc. No.1561/2025, which came to be rejected by order dated 06.09.2025. 7. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional SPP for the respondent No.1 / State, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 / defacto- complainant and perused the material on record. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint or FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 implicated by the complainant with an ulterior motive to harass him. It is submitted that the complaint itself discloses that the petitioner and the complainant were acquainted for a considerable period, and their acquaintance developed into friendship. The complainant voluntarily visited the petitioner’s residence on several occasions. It is emphasized that the complainant is a major and elder to the petitioner, and being aware of her actions, she voluntarily continued the relationship without any protest for months together. It is contended that the complaint came to be lodged only after their relationship deteriorated. 9. The learned counsel contended that there are no specific allegations of forcible sexual intercourse in the complaint. On the contrary, the averments clearly indicate a consensual relationship between two adults who were known to each other for quite some time. Even assuming, but not admitting, the allegations are true, the essential ingredients of the offences invoked are not made out. It is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 submitted that the allegations are vague, exaggerated, and lack credibility. The entire complaint appears to be a result of personal grudge and misunderstanding arising out of a failed relationship. It is further contended that when the petitioner did not meet certain demands of the complainant, she has come up with false and concocted allegations only to harass him. 10. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a professional singer who performs at various musical events and pubs in Bengaluru City. He is currently residing at the address shown in the cause title and is a permanent resident of Sringeri Taluk. He has strong roots in the society and is not likely to abscond or evade the process of law. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and his continued detention would result in loss of livelihood and cause undue hardship to his dependents. 11. The relevant paras of the following decisions are relied by learned counsel for the petitioner: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 i) The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Jatoth Aditya Rathod vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal petition No.5704/2022 DD. 12.08.2022: 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, In elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds, contended that the allegations in the FIR are vague and bald and prima facie does not constitute any offence much less the offences alleged in the FIR. It is also contended that the petitioner is languishing in jail since 15.06.2022 and the Crl.M.P.No.925 of 2022 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further contended that when the parents of A1 did not agree for the marriage, the de facto complainant foisted this false case. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Ansaar Mohammad v. The State of Rajasthan. 6. Perusal of the record shows that there is consent between the de facto complainant and the petitioner and it is also prima facie evident that when the de facto complainant felt that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 the relationship between her and the petitioner is not going to work out, she filed the present complaint. As per the decision of the Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cited supra, when the complainant is willingly stayed and had relationship, if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. ii) The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ansaar Mohammad vs. The state of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599. In view of the said fact, the complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship. Therefore, now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. 12. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent–State vehemently opposed the petition contending that the allegations against the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 petitioner are grave and serious in nature. It is submitted that the material collected during investigation prima facie discloses the involvement of the petitioner in inducing the complainant into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage and thereafter abandoning her, causing severe mental trauma. It is further contended that the conduct of the petitioner clearly indicates an abuse of the complainant’s trust and emotions. The complainant has specifically stated that the petitioner had repeated sexual intercourse with her under the false assurance of marriage and even compelled her to consume contraceptive tablets, and such conduct cannot be treated as consensual. 13. The learned Additional SPP submitted that the investigation is still in progress and release of the petitioner at this stage may hamper the investigation and create a possibility of tampering with prosecution witnesses. It is also contended that the petitioner, being a resident of Bengaluru and a professional performer, has sufficient means and influence to threaten or intimidate - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 the complainant. It is further submitted that the nature of the offence alleged carries moral and social implications, and granting bail at this stage would send a wrong message to society. It is therefore, prayed that the petition be rejected. 14. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 / defacto complainant has filed detailed objections opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner poses a significant risk of tampering with crucial digital evidence, including WhatsApp chats, photographs, and medical records, and may influence or intimidate the complainant and other witnesses. Considering his professional standing and social reach as a performer, he is capable of manipulating public perception to his advantage. Therefore, custodial interrogation and protection of evidence are essential at this stage. It is submitted that the petitioner presents a flight risk, as he is not a permanent resident of Bengaluru, where the offence occurred. His permanent residence is in Sringeri Taluk. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 Given his professional mobility, there exists a real apprehension that he may abscond or evade the process of law. It is further submitted that the trial court, after due consideration of the materials on record, rightly rejected the petitioner’s bail application, having found a prima facie case against him. The complaint, statements of witnesses, and supporting evidence reveal that the petitioner induced the complainant into repeated sexual acts on the false assurance of marriage, despite her initial resistance. It is contended that the investigation is at a nascent stage and crucial evidence, including medical reports and digital data extraction from electronic devices, is still pending. At this stage, release of the petitioner would seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation. 15. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 further submits that the materials collected so far establish that the complainant had repeatedly insisted on waiting until marriage, which negates any element of free and voluntary consent. It is contended that despite being - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 aware of his family’s refusal due to caste differences, the petitioner continued to engage in sexual relations with the complainant, solely to gratify his own desires while keeping her emotionally bound through false assurances. It is submitted that the petitioner’s characterization of the relationship as “consensual” is a deliberate distortion, as consent obtained under deception or false promises cannot be treated as valid consent in law. It is contended that the complainant, being a 30-year-old struggling artist seeking emotional stability and marriage, was deliberately targeted by the petitioner, who exploited her vulnerability and aspirations by leveraging his public image as a professional performer. Hence, it is prayed that in view of the gravity of allegations and ongoing investigation, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 16. The relevant paras of the following decisions are relied by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 / defacto – complainant: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019 9 SCC 608) "Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a misconception of fact that vitiates the woman's consent. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it." ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Naushad (2013 16 SCC 651) "The accused indulged in sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix by misconstruing to her his true intentions. It is apparent from the evidence that the accused only wanted to indulge in sexual intercourse with her and was under no intention of actually marrying the prosecutrix." iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh(2019 13 SCC 1): "From the very - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 inception, the promise given by the accused to marry the prosecutrix was a false promise and from the very beginning there was no intention of the accused to marry the prosecutrix... despite the same, he continued to give false promise and allured the prosecutrix to give her consent for the physical relationship." 17. The record reveals that the petitioner and the complainant were known to each other for a considerable period and were in a relationship which gradually turned intimate. The complaint reveals that the complainant has visited the petitioner’s residence on several occasions. There are no specific allegations of forcible sexual intercourse or use of physical compulsion. 18. The averments in the complaint disclose that the petitioner and the complainant were acquainted through social media, and their friendship gradually developed into a close relationship. The complaint does not indicate any overt act of force or coercion. Prima facie, the material on record discloses a relationship arising out - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 of mutual affection and acquaintance. Whether such relationship was consensual or induced by deceitful promise is a matter to be determined during trial, upon appreciation of evidence. At the stage of considering bail, a detailed examination of the veracity of such allegations is not warranted. 19. At this stage, the allegations, even if taken at their face value, indicate a relationship arising out of mutual affection and acquaintance. Whether the same amounts to consensual intimacy or an act vitiated by deceit is a matter of trial, which cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. 20. The petitioner has been in custody since 11.08.2025. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no longer required. Continued detention would serve no fruitful purpose. The investigation papers do not disclose any material suggesting the petitioner’s involvement in threats, coercion, or destruction of evidence. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution and - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 Respondent No.2 regarding tampering of evidence or influencing witnesses remains speculative and unsupported by any concrete material. The apprehension expressed can be dealt with imposing suitable conditions. Hence, the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.298/2025 of Thalaghattapura Police Station, subject to following conditions: 1. He shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. He shall furnish proof of his residential address and shall inform the Court, if there is change in the address. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41681 CRL.P No. 12859 of 2025 3. He shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 4. He shall not indulge himself in committing any offence. 5. He shall appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing without fail. Violation of any of the above condition/s shall result in cancellation of bail. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1