― Advertisement ―

HomeShri V Ganesh vs State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2026

Shri V Ganesh vs State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2026

ADVERTISEMENT

Karnataka High Court

Shri V Ganesh vs State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2026

                                             -1-
                                                       NC: 2026:KHC:20002
                                                     CRL.P No.12400/2025


                 HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
                                          BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                      CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12400/2025 (439(Cr.PC) /
                                        483(BNSS))


                 BETWEEN:

                 SHRI. V. GANESH
                 S/O VENKATESH
                 AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
                 R/AT. KODIKONDA VILLAGE
Digitally signed CHILAMATHUR MANDAL
by RUPA V        SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT
                 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                                                    ...PETITIONER
KARNATAKA
                 (BY SRI. JAGADISH J.R. ADV.,)



                 AND:

                 1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                       BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                       ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION
                       DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA
                       BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
                       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       BENGALURU-560001.

                 2.    SMT. PADMA .K
                       W/O RAVI KUMAR
                       AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
                       R/A NO.84, MEENA KUNTE
                       DODDAJALA POST
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC:20002
                                       CRL.P No.12400/2025


HC-KAR




    BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
    BENGALURU DISTRICT-562157.

                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                           ---

     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483
BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.5/2024 OF THE RESPONDENT CHIKKABALLAPURA
WOMEN P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 114, 324, 504, 366(A),
370(A), 370 A(1), 370 A (2), 376 (3) OF IPC, AND SEC. 4(2),
6, 17, 21 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL
OFFENCES ACT 2012; SEC. 75 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE
AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT 2015; SEC 3(1)(w), 3(2)
(v) OF THE SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
AMENDMENT ACT 2015; SEC.4, 5 OF THE IMMORAL TRAFFIC
PREVENTION ACT, 1956, PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT -1 (POCSO),
AT CHIKKABALLAPURA SPL.SC. (POCSO) NO.63 OF 2024.

     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
08.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

                     CAV JUDGMENT

This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’),

SPONSORED

by the accused No.4 in Crime No.5/2024 registered by the

Chikkaballapura Women’s police station seeking to enlarge

the petitioner-accused No.4 on bail.
-3-

NC: 2026:KHC:20002
CRL.P No.12400/2025

HC-KAR

2. Sri.Jagadish J.R., learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person

and a resident of Andhra Pradesh. He has no connection

with the family of the victim and has been falsely

implicated in the case. It is submitted that the FIR and

the charge sheet material do not indicate that the accused

No.4 has committed the alleged offence. It is further

submitted that there is delay in lodging the complaint and

no reason is assigned for such enormous delay. It is also

submitted that the story of the victim is self-contradictory,

imaginary and spread over many months and the accused

No.4 is in custody for more than 2 years and the trial has

not yet commenced. Hence, he seeks to enlarge the

petitioner on bail.

3. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State opposes the petition by

contending that the accused No.4 has a vital role in the

commission of crime and the charge sheet material prima
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:20002
CRL.P No.12400/2025

HC-KAR

facie indicates the commission of crime by the accused

No.4. It is submitted that the alleged offences are heinous

in nature and the victim being a minor, the accused No.4

is likely to commit similar offence on the victim. It is

further submitted that the petitioner-accused No.4 is from

the State of Andhra Pradesh and if the bail is granted,

there is a likelihood that the petitioner may abscond.

Hence, he seeks to dismiss the writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader for

the State and meticulously perused the material available

on record including the charge sheet material.

5. The respondent No.1 registered Crime

No.5/2024 against Shivakumar and others for the offences

punishable under Sections 114, 324, 504, 366A, 370,

370A, 370A(1), 370A(2), 376(2)(n), 376(3), 376(DA) of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the offences punishable

under Sections 4(2), 6, 17 and 21 of the Protection of
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:20002
CRL.P No.12400/2025

HC-KAR

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the offences

punishable under Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the offences punishable

under Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

2015 and the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5

of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. The

petitioner herein was arrayed as accused No.4.

6. The case of the prosecution is that the

respondent No.2 who is the aunt of the victim, filed a

written complaint. The charge sheet material indicates

that on 22.01.2024, the victim who was aged about 14

years came crying to the home of the respondent No.2

and informed that the mother of the victim and the

petitioner are residing in a rented house at Bengaluru

wherein the accused No.1 used to visit. It is stated that

the accused No.4 used to insist the victim to accompany

the accused Nos.1 and 2, for which the victim used to

refuse and the accused No.4 used to beat her with a belt
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:20002
CRL.P No.12400/2025

HC-KAR

and the mother of the victim i.e. accused No.5 used to

support the accused No.4 and other accused. It is made

out that the accused Nos.1 and 2 took the victim to a

lodge situated near the Chikkaballapura Post Office and

the accused Nos.1 and 2 committed sexual intercourse on

the victim despite resistance and thereafter, the victim

was left to her house and the mother of the victim has

received money from the accused Nos.1 and 2. The

charge sheet material also indicates that the commission

of sexual intercourse on the victim on different occasions

by the accused persons, was at the instance of the

accused No.4.

7. The jurisdictional police have recorded the

statement of the victim under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.

on 25.01.2024 and also recorded the statement under

Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. I

have perused the statements recorded before the police as

well as the learned Magistrate. The statement of the

victim clearly implicates the accused No.4 for commission
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:20002
CRL.P No.12400/2025

HC-KAR

of the crime as stated in the charge sheet. The medical

records of the victim also clearly demonstrate that the

victim is a minor and there was sexual intercourse by

accused at the instance of accused No.4. The charge

sheet material and other material on record prima facie

makes out a case against the accused No.4 for the

commission of crime and the offences alleged are serious

in nature, punishable with imprisonment for life. It is also

to be noticed that the petitioner-accused No.4 is a resident

of Andhra Pradesh and it would be difficult for securing his

presence for the purpose of trial if he is enlarged on bail.

Insofar as granting of bail to the accused No.6 by this

Court is concerned, the same is on the basis of considering

the victim’s statement. In the case on hand, the victim

has clearly stated before the police as well as the learned

Magistrate about the involvement of the accused No.4 in

the commission of crime. Hence, on the ground of parity,

the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail.
-8-

NC: 2026:KHC:20002
CRL.P No.12400/2025

HC-KAR

8. The charge sheet material prima facie makes

out a ground to believe that the accused No.4 has

committed the offence and considering the nature, gravity

of the offence and severity of the punishment for the

charged offence, I am of the considered view that it is not

a fit case to enlarge the accused No.4 on bail. It is

already recorded supra that the accused No.4 is likely to

flee away from the jurisdictional Court as he is a resident

of Andhra Pradesh if he is enlarged on bail. Admittedly,

the victim is aged about 14 years and there is a likelihood

that the accused No.4 may yield pressure on the victim to

depose falsely before the Court if he is enlarged on bail.

9. The prosecution is required to examine 47

witnesses and still the trial is not commenced.

Considering Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, the Trial

Court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible

without any further delay.

-9-

NC: 2026:KHC:20002
CRL.P No.12400/2025

HC-KAR

10. For the aforementioned reasons, the present

petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly

rejected.

Sd/-

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE

RV
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1



Source link