Kiran @ Manoj Kiran vs State Of Karnataka

Accused No.2 in SC No. 640 of 2026 pending before the Court of LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Special Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.191/2025 of Hennur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 115(2), 70(1), 351(2), 308(2) and 238 r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023 is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is seeking regular bail.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

FIR in Crime No.191/2025 was registered by Hennur Police Station, against Preetam and two others for the aforesaid offences, based on the first information dated 09.05.2025 received from one Jayashree - mother of the victim girl. During the course of investigation of the said case, petitioner is said to have been arrested on 09.05.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. Since his bail application filed before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court was rejected, he had earlier approached this Court in Crl.P.No.10860/2025 which was dismissed as withdrawn by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.09.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application before the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a fresh bail application before the Sessions Court, which was once again dismissed and therefore, petitioner had approached this Court for the second time by filing Crl.P.No.16745/2025 which was heard and dismissed on merits by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.02.2026. Thereafter, petitioner had filed a fresh bail application before the Trial Court in SC No.640/2026 which was dismissed on 01.07.2026. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court in this successive petition seeking regular bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter for sometime submits that petitioner is in custody for the last more than one year. Trial in the case is yet to commence. Since, charge sheet is already filed, his custody is no more required. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

Per contra learned HCGP has opposed the petition submits that no change in circumstance is made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner for entertaining this successive bail application. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.

This is the third petition filed by the petitioner before this Court seeking regular bail. Crl.P.No.10860/2025 filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.09.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application before the Sessions Court, after it was brought to the notice of this Court that, during the pendency of the said petition, statement of the victim girl under Section 183 of BNSS was recorded. The subsequent bail application filed before the learned Sessions Judge by the petitioner was again rejected and therefore, he had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.16745/2025 which was dismissed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 12.02.2026. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting the second bail application of the petitioner has recorded that accused Nos.1 and 2 had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim girl one after the other and accused No.1 had recorded the video of accused No.2, sexually assaulting the victim girl. In the statement of the victim girl that was recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, she had made serious allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2, not only about they committing sexual assault on her but also about they threatening to upload the aforesaid video in the social media and had extracted money from her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any change in circumstance to entertain this successive bail petition. The earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 12.02.2026. Petitioner is in custody in the present case from 09.05.2025 onwards. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an inordinate delay in commencing the trial in the present case. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that successive bail petition cannot be entertained.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.