- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32419 CRL.P No. 16438 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.16438 OF 2025 (439(2)(Cr.PC)/483(3)(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. VICTIM GIRL D/O SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN-MOTHER SMT. LATHA R/AT M.M.A.KAVAL VILLAGE, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 216. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.B.R. RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY DANDINASIVARA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING-560 001. 2. SRI. RAJANNA S/O LATE MANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT C.NANDHIHALLI VILLAGE AT POST, Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32419 CRL.P No. 16438 of 2025 NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 117. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA,HCGP., FOR R.1; SRI. MALLIKARJUN B. RYAKHA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S.483(3) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.08.2025 PASSED BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC-I), TUMAKURU IN CRL.MISC.CASE.NO.1151/2025, IN (CRIME NO.62/2025 OF DANDINASHIVARA P.S., REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 64(1), 64(2)(m) R/W SECTION 3(5) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS), 2023 AND SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32419 CRL.P No. 16438 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. The petition for cancellation of bail granted to accused in Crl.Misc.No.1151/2025 on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-I), Tumakuru (Spl.C.No.217/2026 on the file of Fast Track Court-1, Tumkur District, Tumkur) is filed by the victim girl. 2. Respondent no.2 is accused no.1 in the police report. 3. Respondent no.2 is accused of committing the offences under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 4. The facts in brief are as follows: "17. PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À UÀÄ©â vÁ¯ÉÆèÃPï ZÉüÀÆgÀÄ ºÉÆç½AiÀÄ ¹.£ÀA¢ºÀ½îAiÀÄ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 65 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĹì£À DgÉÆæ gÁdtÚ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-2 ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ªÉÆÃmÁgï j¥ÉÃj PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ vÁvÀ UÀÄgÀĹzÀÝ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀÄ PÀgÉzÁUÀ JAJAJ PÁªÀ°£À ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀiÁµÉ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:02.04.2025 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝUÀ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 1.30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32419 CRL.P No. 16438 of 2025 DgÉÆæ gÁdtÚgÀªÀgÀÄ C°èUÉ §AzÀªÀgÉà ¸ÁQë-1 vÀ©âPÉÆAqÀÄ QgÀÄazÀgÀÆ ©qÀzÉ, PɼÀPÉÌ PÉqÀ«PÉÆAqÀÄ §mÉÖ ©aÑ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ ¸ÀA¨ÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁr F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁjUÁzÀgÀÆ ºÉýzÀgÉ ¸ÀĪÀÄä£É ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉzÀj¹zÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄvÉÛ MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÉÆÃlPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 3.00 UÀAmÉ AiÀÄ°è DgÉÆæ gÁdtÚ C°èUÉ §AzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÉzÀj¹ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð £Àqɹ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÀ®ªÁj ¨Áj ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV C¥Áæ¥ÉÛAiÀiÁzÀgÀÆ DPÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ªÀiÁr UÀ©üðt ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄzÀjAzÀ PÀ®A 64(1), 64(2)(m), 352 ©J£ïJ¸ï ºÁUÀÆ PÀ®A 4 & 6 POCSO Act-2012 jÃvÁå ²PÁëºÀð£ÉAvÀ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è E£ÀÆß ºÉaÑ£À zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁPÁëöåzsÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ zÉÆgÉvÀ°è PÀ®A 193(9) ©J£ïJ¸ïJ¸ï jÃvÁå WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ." 5. Respondent no.2 has contented before the trial Court that he is not guilty of the offences alleged against him. That he did not have any sexual intercourse with the victim girl. That the statements of the victim girl have been inconsistent and there is a possibility that she has been made pregnant by one of her cousins. 6. The trial Court, for the following reasons has granted bail to respondent no.2: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32419 CRL.P No. 16438 of 2025 "12. I have meticulously perused the materials on record. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has furnished the statement of the victim recorded under Section 181 of the BNSS, before the police and the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 13. In the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS on 26.05.2025, the victim has categorically stated that, she had gone to the house of her mother-in-law, as her mother-in-law had sustained fracture at Thovinakere village, therefore she stayed for 01 month and during that time herself and one Shivamurthy-the accused No.1 had consensual sexual intercourse, resulting in her becoming pregnant. 14. From the case papers, it is evident that there are inconsistencies in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In the statement recorded on 26.05.2025 she narrated that the petitioner had not committed any sexual intercourse on her, but she had consensual sex with one Shivamurthy who is accused No.1. In the statement recorded on 18.07.2025 she narrated that the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse on her, resulting in her pregnancy. When the statement of the victim is inconsistent, this court inclined to allow the petition filed by the petitioner. It is opined from the statements that the victim has taken different stands which prima-facie creates a doubt about the alleged incident. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32419 CRL.P No. 16438 of 2025 15. Though the prosecution has contended that the DNA reports are awaited, the petitioner is not entitled for grant bail, the same can determined after full dressed trial. be Further, the police after securing the petitioner, sent back as no crime was done by this petitioner. 16. Whether one the petitioner or Shivamurthy- the accused No.1 had committed forceful sexual assault on her as well as the minority of the victim girl can be determined after elaborate trial. Certainly, commencement of trial would take some considerable time. 17. Further, the victim and her parents have appeared before this Court and prayed for rejection of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, but no strong grounds have been made out to refuse bail to the petitioner. Moreover, the victim is aged about 17 years 08 months, she knows the consequences of her actions. 18. It is relevant to mention that whatever the opinion formed by this court in respect of considering the bail in the present petition, same cannot be the ground for the petitioner on the merits of the case and even the observations being made above will not take away the case of the prosecution on merits." 7. The petitioner has filed the instant petition with a prayer to cancel the bail granted by the trial Court to respondent no.2, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32419 CRL.P No. 16438 of 2025 mainly on the ground that considering the age of the petitioner and the social status, she and her family were put under anxiety and fear which led to inconsistent statement by the petitioner initially. However, she has subsequently reiterated that it was respondent no.2 who is responsible for making her pregnant. It is also undisputed that petitioner was a minor at the time of incident and also at the time of detecting of her pregnancy. It is further submitted that the trial Court erred in its judgment because it did not have the benefit of the forensic report (DNA report), which clearly establishes the fact that respondent no.2 is responsible for pregnancy of the victim girl and the fetus was conceived by him. For the said reasons, it is submitted that, in the light of any adverse facts having surfaced after grant of bail, the bail granted in favour of respondent no.2 requires to be cancelled. 8. Learned High Court Government Pleader upon instructions, submits that, at the time of trial Court granting the bail, it did not have the benefit of DNA report. He further submits that, the DNA report clearly establishes that the fetus was conceived by respondent no.2 and it clearly establishes - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32419 CRL.P No. 16438 of 2025 that he had sexual intercourse with the petitioner when she was a minor. He further submits that investigation has revealed that respondent no.2 threatened the petitioner of dire consequences including social stigma to the effect that it would be in her interest to frame accused no.2 who happens to her maternal uncle’s son so that she can get married to him without any stigma. It is submitted that this threat led to inconsistent statement made initially by the petitioner. 9. The contention of respondent no.2 is that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. It is submitted that the date of alleged incident is said to have taken place on 04.03.2025, whereas the complaint is lodged on 20.05.2025. It is also submitted that the complainant has made inconsistent statements during the investigation. It is submitted that initially when her statement was recorded by the police, she stated that accused No.2, namely Shivamurthy, is responsible for her pregnancy. For the said reasons, it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to make out a prima facie case against respondent No.2 and the trial Court has rightly released him on bail. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32419 CRL.P No. 16438 of 2025 10. In the instant case, admittedly, the victim is a minor. DNA report, prima facie establishes that respondent no.2 had sexual intercourse with the petitioner when she was a minor resulting in her pregnancy. Respondent no.2 is aged around 65 years. The sexual intercourse which is prima facie established under the circumstances, cannot be considered to be one that of infatuation between teenage persons. It is a case wherein respondent no.2 deliberately had sexual intercourse with the petitioner knowing fully well that she was a minor, without even considering the consequences that it would result in and the way it may ruin the life of the petitioner. Further, the act of respondent no.2 in trying to threaten the petitioner to say that her pregnancy was caused by her maternal uncle’s son shows that respondent no.2 is likely to tamper with the evidence and the prosecution witnesses. The allegation made against respondent no.2 is one that of a heinous crime and the material placed before this Court prima facie establishes the fact that respondent no.2 has committed the said crime. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32419 CRL.P No. 16438 of 2025 11. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in lodging the complaint cannot be considered fatal. Similarly, the inconsistent statements made by the victim as to who was responsible for her pregnancy, also cannot be considered fatal. Respondent No.2 is unable to dispute the fact that the DNA report establishes the fetus was conceived by him. It establishes a prima facie case against respondent No.2. Of course, the prosecution will still have to prove its case in the trial and respondent No.2 is having the liberty to establish before the trial Court that he is not responsible for the victim's pregnancy. However, at this juncture, depending upon the materials placed one has to believe that a prima facie case is made out against respondent No.2, which is a heinous offence and that he has attempted to tamper with the evidence. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32419 CRL.P No. 16438 of 2025 ii. The bail granted to respondent no.2 in Crl.Misc.No.1151/2025 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-I), Tumakuru, (Spl.C.No.217/2026 on the file of Fast Track Court-1, Tumkur District, Tumkur) is hereby cancelled. iii. Respondent No.2 shall surrender before the jurisdictional trial Court within a period of three weeks from today, failing which the needful shall be done by the respondent - Police. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG/VMB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5