High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 08 KAR CK 2075

Sri. Rajesh @ Raju vs State Of Karnataka & Anr.

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru Bench · Decided on 13 August 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
S Vishwajith Shetty, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8834 OF 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 801 words
1.

Accused in Special.C.C.No.1736/2025 pending before the Court of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-V, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.375/2025 registered by Mahadevapura Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 65(1), 64(2)(m), 87 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 4(2), 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, is before this Court in this criminal petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3.

FIR in Crime No.375/2025 was registered by Mahadevapura Police Station, Bengaluru initially for offence punishable under Section 137(2) of BNS, 2023 against unknown person based on the first information dated 14.06.2025, received from respondent No.2, who is the father of the victim girl, aged 14 years. During the course of investigation, petitioner was arrested on 17.06.2025. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. His bail application filed before the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.1455/2026 was rejected on 26.03.2026. Therefore, he is before this Court.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that medical records do not support the case of the prosecution and it is also found that the doctor, who had medically examined the alleged victim has stated that the victim appears to be mentally abnormal and needs psychiatric opinion. Therefore, the statement of the victim girl is not of much relevance. He also submits that victim girl has not been produced before any psychiatrist till date for securing opinion with regard to the same. Petitioner is in custody for more than last one year. Investigation of the case is already completed. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

5.

Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 have strongly opposed the prayer made in the petition. They submit that petitioner has committed a heinous offence on a minor girl aged about 14 years, taking advantage of her mental condition. Petitioner is a known person to the family of the victim girl. Victim girl has made allegations against him in a statement recorded before the Police as well as before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Trial in the case is under progress and the material charge sheet witnesses are not examined by the defense. According, they pray to dismiss the petition.

6.

FIR in Crime No.375/2025 was registered by Mahadevapura Police Station against unknown person after the victim girl, aged 14 years and her younger sister, aged 3 years were found missing on 14.06.2025. During the course of investigation, the victim girl and her younger sister were traced on 15.06.2025 and on enquiry, victim girl had informed her father that petitioner, who used to visit their house, had come to their house on 14.06.2025 after her parents had left for work and on the guise of providing employment to the victim girl in a PG, he had taken the victim girl and her younger sister along with him. The petitioner stayed with the victim girl and her younger sister under a flyover on the night of 14.06.2025 and he allegedly had sexual intercourse with the victim girl forcibly.

7.

The statement of the victim girl has been recorded in the present case before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023. Even in the said statement, the victim girl has made clear allegations of petitioner committing sexual assault on her. Merely for the reason that the doctor, who had medically examined the victim girl has stated that she is found to be mentally abnormal and needs psychiatric opinion, the same cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail, when the victim girl has made clear allegations of sexual assault on her against the petitioner, victim girl and her younger sister were found missing on 14.06.2025 and on the next day, they were found near the flyover and subsequently, on enquiry, the victim girl had informed that she had accompanied the petitioner from the house, since he had assured her to provide employment in a PG.

8.

The victim girl was taken to the hospital for medical examination on 15.06.2025 itself and having the trauma faced by her on the night of 14.06.2025, when she was not mentally stable, that itself is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that her statement cannot be believed by the Courts at this stage.

9.

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the trial in the case has commenced and examination-in-chief of the victim girl is already completed. Even the other material charge sheet witnesses are examined in chief, but the defense has not yet cross examined such witnesses.

10.

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that at this stage, petitioner's prayer for grant of regular bail, cannot be entertained.

11.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.