- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24234 CRL.P No. 16952 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16952 OF 2025 BETWEEN: NAVEEN KUMAR S/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANJULA'S RENT HOUSE, NEAR ANGANAWADI, CHIKKABETTAHALLI, VIDYARANYAPUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YALAHANKA NEW TOWN PS NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O KEMPARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT. NO 166, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE, DODDABETTAHALLI LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPUR POST, BENGALURU CITY - 560 064 Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24234 CRL.P No. 16952 of 2025 (MOTHER OF VICTIM GIRL) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. RANGASWAMY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VENKATESH P. DALWAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER GRANTING REGULAR BAIL THEREBY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.342/2024 ON SPL.C.NO.1726/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC IV BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/ 5(L), 6, 17 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.64(2)(m), 115(2), 137(2), 54 OF BNS 2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Venkatesh.P.Dalwai learned counsel for respondent No.2. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24234 CRL.P No. 16952 of 2025 2. Petitioner is the accused No.1 in Crime No.0342/2024 for the offences punishable under Section 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 115(2), 137(2), 249, 3(5) and 64 of the BNS Act, 2023, is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. (Section 483 of BNSS). The brief facts are as under 3. Complaint came to be lodged on 07.07.2024 before the Yelahanka New Town Police Station, alleging that the petitioner Naveen Kumar, was a friend of the son of the complainant, namely Yeshwanth, who used to often visit her house and had a liking towards the minor daughter Sharanya and in this regard, complainant had warned the petitioner not to come to the house and have any relationship or companionship with her daughter, and after this he kept quiet, and on 06.07.2024 at 11.30 p.m., when the complainant and her husband were sleeping in their house with their daughter beside her there was a knock on the door, later they came to know that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24234 CRL.P No. 16952 of 2025 daughter is not at home and must have gone to the house of Naveen Kumar, they went to Madeshwara village at 03.30 a.m., looked around. Both her daughter and Accused Naveen were found there. They visited the police station and lodged a complaint against the petitioner/accused before the Yelahanka New Town Police Station, investigation commenced, thereafter, a charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner along with the other accused. 4. The charge sheet has been filed in Spl.C No.1726/2024. The petitioner moved the Regular Court for bail in Criminal Misc No.8503/2024. The same came to be rejected. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 07.07.2024. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that a false case has been filed against him, implicating him for the heinous offence which has not been committed, but implicated due to inimical attitude towards the petitioner for personal reasons. It is contended by learned counsel for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24234 CRL.P No. 16952 of 2025 petitioner that the medical examination of the victim does not indicate any bodily injuries, marks or violence or any forceful sexual activity, thereby seriously weakening the prosecution case and not supporting the case of the prosecution neither the statements made by the victim. 5. It is further contended that though the prosecution has claimed that the accused allegedly kidnapped the victim around 02.00 a.m. and the incident took place at 03.30 a.m. near the house of accused Nos.3 and 4, the timeline is inherently improbable not supported by any CCTV footage or the neighbours or passersby or with any independent witnesses. The prosecution has also not explained how the victim was taken or how she resisted or anybody having seen the petitioner along with the victim. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the prosecution has failed to produce any admissible documents with regard to proof of age. Age is the primary - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24234 CRL.P No. 16952 of 2025 or foundational element for the offence to be made out under the POCSO Act, as without proving the age beyond doubt the prosecution cannot stand on its legs. 7. It is further contented by learned counsel that as per the complaint and the charge sheet and the statements recorded of the victim, they are all not in consonance with each other and as per the charge sheet and the statement, it indicates the victim left the house on her own accord, travelled with petitioner, visited multiple locations, which itself demonstrates that there was voluntary said consensual relationship and no kidnapping or any coercion as alleged. 8. It is also contended that prosecution has not made out any physical compulsion, restraint, intimidation, isolation of the victim and also the fact that there is no injuries or corroborative evidence. The essential ingredients for the alleged offences are not made out. Learned counsel further contends that in view of the other - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24234 CRL.P No. 16952 of 2025 accused, 2 to 4 having been granted bail, the petitioner also deserves to be granted bail on the ground of parity. Apart from that, there is no proper foundational facts made out or any offence made out as against the petitioner to show there was forceful sexual assault against the victim. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that the petitioner is aged 21 years and if he is kept in Judicial custody, his life will be ruined in time and he has deep roots in the society and he will cooperate with investigation and ready to appear as and when required before the Court as the evidence is has already commenced. On these grounds he seeks grant of bail to the petitioner/accused no.1. 10. Per-contra learned HCGP vehemently contends that there are sufficient cogent materials available on record, the statement of the victim girl has been recorded before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24234 CRL.P No. 16952 of 2025 and it is consistent with the statement so made along with the charge sheet also. Therefore, there is no inconsistencies in the statements made in the complaint. It is also contented that along with the charge sheet the documents are produced which clearly shows that the age of the victim is 16 years as on the alleged date of incident and ample materials are available after the investigation to pinpoint the offence made out by the petitioner/accused No.1, which is heinous, and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there are every chances of hampering and tampering with the prosecution witness, threatening the prosecution witnesses and he may abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court. 11. Learned HCGP further contends that the gravity of the offence is serious and the accusations are very severe so also the punishment is severe. Considering the age of the victim girl and the danger that is apprehended to the victim and the prosecution witnesses, he seeks this - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24234 CRL.P No. 16952 of 2025 Court to reject the bail petition sought for by accused No.1. 12. He also contends that mere grant of bail to other accused Nos. 2 to 4 would not give the liberty or ground to the petitioner or the right to seek for bail as the allegations made against the accused Nos.2 to 4 are different from the allegations and the offence made out as against the petitioner/accused No.1. On these grounds he seeks rejection of the bail petition. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP, and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Apparently, it is seen that the age of the minor victim is shown to be 16 years as per the documents produced along with the charge sheet, which will have to be decided during the course of trial. There are case and counter case filed against both parties which are not in dispute. It is also seen that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.07.2024. Statements of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24234 CRL.P No. 16952 of 2025 victim girl is recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate and there is consistency in the statement made by her as per the documents produced placed on record. There are prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW8. PW1 has been examined, so also PW2, but both are not cross examined by the petitioner/accused. So also PW8 and PW9 have been examined and they have not been cross examined. The crucial witnesses would be PW1 and PW2. Who are yet to be cross examined. At this stage, if the petitioner is let out on bail, there could be chances of tampering with the witnesses and hampering with the prosecution and also threatening the witnesses and winning over the victim. 14. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner for grant of bail at this stage, considering the serious allegation made against the petitioner, so also for the reason that prosecution witnesses are yet to be cross- examined. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24234 CRL.P No. 16952 of 2025 15. Accordingly, I pass the following:- ORDER The bail petition is rejected. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court after the cross examination of PW1 and PW2, and the parents of the victim girl. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2