- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28750 CRL.RP No. 647 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.647 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. PARVATHI @ PREMA W/O. CHANDRAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2266 'D' BLOCK, 9TH MAIN RAJAJINAGAR, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA M.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY PANDAVAPURA POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.01.2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT SRIRANGAPATNA, IN REJECTING THE DISCHARGE APPLICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28750 CRL.RP No. 647 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the case while filing the additional charge-sheet and there was no allegation in the complaint as well as in the first charge sheet with regard to involvement of this petitioner. This petitioner is arraigned as accused No.20 while filing additional charge-sheet and no material is collected by the Investigating Officer to implicate this petitioner and only the basis is co-accused statement. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his argument relied upon the judgment in KARAN TALWAR vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in AIR 2025 SC 225, wherein the Apex Court made an observation that appellant was made an accused based on confession by co- accused, but there was no direct evidence or recovery of contraband from him and sole material available against - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28750 CRL.RP No. 647 of 2026 appellant was confession statement of co-accused which cannot translate into admissible evidence at the stage of trial. Hence, the Apex Court held that rejection of application for discharge was erroneous and accused was discharged. The counsel referring this judgment would contend that the prosecution, except relying upon CDR i.e., phone call conversation between this accused and accused No.6, not produced any other material before this Court. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that, in order to implicate this petitioner as accused No.20, the Investigating Officer has collected phone call details between accused No.6 and accused No.20. He would submit that there was conversation between accused No.6 and accused No.20 and accused No.20 made a statement with the accused No.6 that she is bringing a pregnant woman and he has to disclose sex of the fetus which is in her womb. Hence, he would submit that there is material against the petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28750 CRL.RP No. 647 of 2026 appearing for the respondent-State, except CDR or phone call between accused No.6 and accused No.20, no other material before this Court to implicate this petitioner and based only on the co-accused statement, this petitioner has been implicated in the case as accused No.20. There is a force in the contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that her name was not found in the complaint as well as in the first charge- sheet and subsequently, while filing additional charge-sheet, her name has been implicated in the case on hand only considering there was a phone call between them. 6. When such being the case and when there is no material to continue the charge against the petitioner and in the absence of any material before the Court, only based on the confession statement of co-accused and phone call between this petitioner and accused No.6, there cannot be any criminal prosecution against the petitioner as there is no material regarding what had been transpired between them except phone call. Hence, there is a substance in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and therefore, question of continuing the proceedings against the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28750 CRL.RP No. 647 of 2026 does not arise in view of the judgment of the Apex Court and the same is applicable to the case on hand. 7. The Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the discharge application vide order dated 27.01.2026. The Trial Court also made an erroneous observation while passing an order that this petitioner acted as broker to bring victim pregnant woman for the purpose of scanning and erroneously made an observation in the order that there are no cogent and corroborative materials/documents produced by the accused to show that he is a stranger to the present case. This reasoning of the Trial Court is erroneous and it is not the duty of the accused to produce material, but it is the duty of the prosecution to show the material before the Court to continue the proceedings against the accused and this observation is unknown to law and prosecution has to make out the case and not the accused. Hence, the impugned order requires to be set aside. 8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28750 CRL.RP No. 647 of 2026 ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed. (ii) The application filed by the petitioner for discharge under Sections 227 and 239 of Cr.P.C. is allowed by setting aside the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the Trial Court and consequently accused No.20 is discharged. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20