IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 12248 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /

483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. SRI NAVEEN M S/O SANJEEV AGED 24 YEARS R/AT RAMPUR VILALGE NIJAMABAD DISTRICT TELANGANA – 503 187.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. S R SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY KARNATAKA THIRUMALASHETTIHALLI PS REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARA YANA BENGALURU - 560 001.

MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF 2. SRI SUBRAMANYA KARNATAKA S/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT BONDANHOSAHALLI ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK HOSAKOTE - 562 114.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B PUSHPALATHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.No.769/2024 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376(3), 376(n), OF THE IPC AND SEC.4(2), 5(L), 6, 12 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 9 OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT THIRUMALASHETTIHALLI POLICE THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU HAS REJECTED THE BAIL PETITION ON

17.06.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.1048/2025 AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner –accused under Section 483 of BNSS seeking grant of bail in Spl.C.No.769/2024 pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC –II, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru registered for offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 376(n) of Indian Penal Code, Sections 4(2), 5(L), 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Child Marriage Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 -State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that on perusal of statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C indicates that there was a love affair between petitioner –accused and the victim girl and there is no allegation of forcible sexual act by the petitioner on the victim girl. The victim girl was aged about 17 years 02 months as on the date of alleged incident. Chare sheet is filed and the petitioner –accused is not required for custodial interrogation. The petitioner - accused is aged about 24 years and if he is kept in prison he will come in contact with hardened criminals. With this he prays to allow the petition and grant bail to the petitioner -accused.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 -State would contend that the petitioner -accused, even though aware that the victim is minor, he married her and had sexual intercourse with her. The said act of the petitioner -accused attracts the offences alleged against him. There is a prima facie case against the petitioner -accused for offences alleged against him. With this, she prayed to reject the petition.

5. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused the charge sheet records and other materials placed on record.

6. The accusation against the petitioner -accused as per column 17 of the charge sheet is that he had come in contact with victim girl through Instagram and there was love affair between them. The parents of the victim girl used to scold her as she is not studying properly and only using mobile phone. The victim girl informed the same to the petitioner -accused. The petitioner -accused and the victim girl on 21.06.2024 went to Bangalore and the petitioner -accused has promised that he will marry and look after her well. The petitioner married the victim girl on 23.06.2024 and took her to Moolangi village, took house on rent and stayed in the said house, where petitioner -accused