- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20563 CRL.P No. 15573 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15573 OF 2025 BETWEEN: AMARESH H.B, S/O BASAVARAJAIAH H.B, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A ANEKATTE VILLAGE CASSAVA HOBLIL, C.N. HALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT, NOW REDISING AT HARADAGERE VILLAGE GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 223. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWAKSEN R. BADAGANDI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI PS, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. VICTIM GIRL REPRESENTED BY FATHER, DHARANIKUMAR, S/O ISHWARAIAH AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT BAILAPPANAMATHA VILLAGE KANDIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKUKRU DISTRICT - 572 228. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20563 CRL.P No. 15573 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C NO.249/2025 ORIGINATING FROM CRIME NO. 52/2025 OF RESPONDENT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 64 (2)(m), 65 (1) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA AND SECTION 4 (2), 6 OF POCSO ACT, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (FTSC-I), AT TUMAKURU, IN THE ABOVE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri.Vishwaksen R. Badagandi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.M.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.B.S.Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Petition is filed under Section 483 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: “Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to release the above named - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20563 CRL.P No. 15573 of 2025 petitioner on bail in Spl.C.No.249/2025 originating from Crime No.52/2025 of respondent Chikkanayakanahalli police for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 4(2), 6 of POCSO Act, which is pending before the Hon’ble Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTSC-1), at Tumakuru, in the above case in the ends of justice.” 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the petition are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged by respondent No.2 with Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station by contending that on 29.03.2025 at about 1.30 a.m., victim girl was suffering from acute stomach pain and she was taken to the Doctor. Immediately, Doctor who examined the victim girl told that she was full pregnant and immediately she should to be shifted to the scanning centre. Accordingly, victim girl was taken to a scanning centre in a private hospital and victim girl delivered a male baby. It is the doctor who helped the victim girl to deliver the baby boy. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20563 CRL.P No. 15573 of 2025 3.2. Noticing the age of the victim girl, doctor told the complainant that the incident would be reported to the police and thereafter, incident was reported to the police by the complainant. 3.3. On enquiry with the victim girl, she revealed that driver of the Omni car who was dropping the victim girl to the school on a monthly remuneration of Rs.800/-, cajoled the victim girl and after dropping all the students, he used to take the victim girl to a lonely house situated behind the SMS School and had sexual intercourse with the victim girl. 3.4. It is also found from the complaint that she managed to keep the pregnancy secret and when she revealed the same to the petitioner, he has told that he is a teacher in Jyananidhi School and is also working as a driver by running a Omni car, he got enough money to marry her. He had secured few tablets to be consumed for abortion which was not consumed by the victim girl. It is alleged that it is the petitioner who is responsible for her pregnancy. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20563 CRL.P No. 15573 of 2025 4. Police after registering the case in Crime No.52/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, investigated the matter and during the course of investigation, arrested the petitioner. 5. Petitioner has approached for grant of bail before the Special Court, Tumkuru in Crl.Misc.918/2025 which came to be dismissed on 07.07.2025. 6. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that petitioner is a sole bread earner and he is in custody on and from 30.03.2025 and therefore, sought for grant of bail. 8. He would further contend that since the charge sheet is filed, continuation of the accused in judicial custody is no longer warranted and fact of physical relationship that the accused had with the victim girl is a consensual act inasmuch - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20563 CRL.P No. 15573 of 2025 as victim girl did not reveal the incident till up to delivery of the baby boy which amply establishes a fact that it is the consensual act and thus sought grant of bail. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the bail grounds. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that petitioner is aged about 40 years and is a married person. He is working as a teacher and also a part- time driver in dropping the children to the school in an Omni car. 12. Taking advantage of the adolescence of the victim girl, he has managed to cajole her and have physical relationship though he has got a legally wedded wife and family to maintain. There cannot be any consensual sex between a 40 year old person and a 9th standard school going girl. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20563 CRL.P No. 15573 of 2025 13. Nevertheless, even if any such consensus would exist, same is not legal consent in the light of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Independent Thought v. Union of India reported in (2017) 10 SCC 800. 14. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “79. There is no doubt that pro-child statutes are intended to and do consider the best interest of the child. These statutes have been enacted in the recent past though not effectively implemented. Given this situation, we are of opinion that a few facts need to be acknowledged and accepted: 79.1.Firstly, a child is and remains a child regardless of the description or nomenclature given to the child. It is universally accepted in almost all relevant statutes in our country that a child is a person below 18 years of age. Therefore, a child remains a child whether she is described as a street child or a surrendered child or an abandoned child or an adopted child. Similarly, a child remains a child whether she is a married child or an unmarried child or a divorced child or a separated child or a widowed child. At this stage we are reminded of Shakespeare's eternal view that a rose by any other - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20563 CRL.P No. 15573 of 2025 name would smell as sweet—so also with the status of a child, despite any prefix. 79.2.Secondly, the age of consent for sexual intercourse is definitively 18 years and there is no dispute about this. Therefore, under no circumstance can a child below 18 years of age give consent, express or implied, for sexual intercourse. The age of consent has not been specifically reduced by any statute and unless there is such a specific reduction, we must proceed on the basis that the age of consent and willingness to sexual intercourse remains at 18 years of age.” 15. Admittedly, petitioner having had sexual relationship with a 9th standard school girl, repeatedly she not only became pregnant and has delivered a baby boy. 16. Victim girl not revealing the incident to her parents till the baby boy who has delivered would not improve the case of the petitioner in assessing the merits of the case especially when a charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act has been alleged against the petitioner. 17. This Court, at this stage, is not expected to carry out a detailed discussion on merits or demerits of the case and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20563 CRL.P No. 15573 of 2025 same may prejudice the case of the parties during the trial one way or the other. 18. Suffice to say that material available on record at this stage would definitely disentitle the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail by resorting to special powers vested in this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 19. Accordingly, following: ORDER Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6