CRL.A/864/2026 of GOVINDARAJU @ GOVINDHA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 10 September 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 864 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2))

BETWEEN:

1.

GOVINDARAJU @ GOVINDHA,

S/O. LATE. GANGAYYA,

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

PERMANENT RESIDENT OF

SAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,

GANGASANDRA POST,

GAURIBIDNUR TALUK,

CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,

KARNATAKA – 561 208.

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT

VADDARAPALYA VILLAGE,

NEAR WATER FILTER,

DODDABALLAPURA,

BENGALURU DISTRICT,

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. G. NARASI REDDY., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY BENGALURU DISTRICT

WOMEN P.S.,

BENGALURU RURAL

REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

Digitally

signed by

SUSHMA

LAKSHMI

B S

Location:

High

Court of

Karnataka

HC-KAR

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

BENGALURU – 560 001.

2.

KAVYA G.P,

D/O. PRAKASH,

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

R/AT D.C.P.U, BEERASANDRA,

D.C. OFFICE,

DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

BENGALURU DISTRICT,

KARNATAKA – 562 110.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. V. ANOOPKUMAR., ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

----

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO

RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.655/2025, ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.134/2025, REGISTERED BY

BENGALURU DISTRICT WOMEN P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S

3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, U/S 4(2), 6 OF POCSO

ACT, 2012, PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I AT BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED

ON

10.08.2026,

COMING

ON

FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

HC-KAR

CAV JUDGMENT

1.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is the sole accused in Crime 134/2025 registered by the respondent – Police for the offences under Sections 4(2)

and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’), seeking for grant of bail.

Brief facts of the case:

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl had been to attend her sister’s postnatal delivery in Doddaballapura Government Hospital. She met the accused in the said hospital, who was working in the canteen. On 25.04.2025, at about 02.00 a.m., it is alleged that the accused lured the girl and took her to the park behind the Government Hospital, Doddaballapura

and

committed

sexual

intercourse

with

her.

Consequently, she became pregnant and it has been diagnosed when she went to the hospital along with her sister for medical examination. Therefore, a complaint

HC-KAR

came to be registered against the appellant. The respondent No.1 - police have registered a case, conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

3.

Heard Sri. G. Narasi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. V. Anoopkumar, learned Addl. SPP

for the respondent No.1 – State. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.

4.

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Though the alleged incident had occurred on 25.04.2025, the complaint came to be registered on 16.06.2025. There is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint.

5.

It is further submitted that, in the statement made before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the victim has stated that both the victim and appellant were romantically attracted to each other and their relationship was consensual. The

HC-KAR

averments of the charge sheet would indicate that the appellant was aged about 22 years and he was loving the victim. Therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions, considering his age. He will abide by the conditions to be imposed in the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

6.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 - State vehemently submitted that the age of the victim has been proved that she was a minor as on the date of the incident. The victim was aged about 15 years and she belongs to Scheduled Caste.

The statement of the victim clearly indicates that she had been subjected to sexual assault and she became pregnant. Therefore, at this stage, it is not appropriate to grant any relief.

7.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the charge sheet, it would indicate that the victim appears to have been

HC-KAR

subjected to sexual assault. Consequently, she became pregnant. Later, it has been diagnosed and the same has been terminated.

8.

On considering the act committed by the appellant and also on going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not appropriate to grant any relief as prayed.

9.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-