In cases of serious sexual offences against minors from marginalized communities involving pregnancy and threats, consistent victim testimony prima-facie justifies the denial of bail to prevent witness tampering and ensure trial integrity.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 367 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2))

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE 20.12.2025, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN SPL.C.(P) NO.134/2025 (CR.NO.265/2025) ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 AT CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 65(1). 64(2)(m) AND 351(2) OF BNS, SECTIONS 4(2) AND 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTIONS 3(1)(w) (i) (ii) AND 3(2) (va) OF SC/ST (P.O.A)ACT, REGISTERED IN KADUR P.S., PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE SAID CASE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL JUDGMENT

The accused/appellant is before this Court in this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "SC/ST Act, 1989"), being aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2025 passed in SPL.C.(P).No.134/2025 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court FTSC-1, Chikkamagaluru, by which the bail application filed by the accused/appellant herein under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS Act, 2023") has been rejected.

2. The allegation against the accused/appellant is that on 22.07.2025, he with the knowledge of the victim being below 16 years of age belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, had forcibly taken her to the house belonging to his aunt and has repeatedly committed sexual assault on her, leading to her pregnancy. It is also alleged that he had intimidated and threatened her, putting life of her mother and grandmother in danger. The Trial Court considering the serious nature of allegations made against the accused/appellant and severity of the punishment prescribed thereto declined to grant the relief as prayed for.

3. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no allegation of physical violence or forcible assault made on the victim. The investigation has been completed, the charge sheet has already been filed and the accused/appellant is not required for custodial interrogation, his continued detention would serve no purpose. That the accused/appellant is aged about 23 years, having no previous criminal antecedents. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand, submits that the accused/appellant, who was acquainted with the victim, knowing fully about her age and that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, has repeatedly committed sexual assault on her , which she has revealed to her mother and later discovered that she was 2 1/2 month pregnant. The allegations and consequences of the same are true and severe, as such the accused/appellant is not entitled for the bail. If the accused/appellant is granted bail, there is every possibility of absconding, threatening and tampering the prosecution evidence. Hence, he seeks for rejection of the appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.

6. The victim in her complaint dated 20.09.2025 as well as in her statement recorded under Section 183(5) of the BNSS Act before the Jurisdictional Magistrate has reiterated the allegations of accused/appellant repeatedly sexually assaulting her under the threat of causing harm to her mother and grandmother. She ha