CRL.P/2962/2026 of SRI MAHADEVAN @ DEEPU Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 9 April 2026

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner / accused No.1, is before this Court seeking regular bail in Spl.C.C. No.2377/2025 pending on the file of learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.265/2024 registered by the respondent-police for the offences punishable under Sections 336(3), 137(2), 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m), 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 17, 4(2), 5(l), 5(j), 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and under Section 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Brief facts of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint came to be registered by the father of the victim, stating that on 13.07.2024, the victim girl has been abducted from the lawful custody of her parents and she had been kept in a dilapidated house at Koteuru, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu State and it is alleged that the petitioner had

HC-KAR

committed sexual assault on the victim girl on many occasions. Again, the petitioner returned to Bengaluru along with the victim and made her to stay in a house at Praghathi Layout, Hongasandra.

3. It is further stated that the petitioner married the victim in the month of January 2025 and both were staying in Hongasandra. The victim became pregnant. Thereafter, she gave birth to a child. Based on the said complaint, the respondent - Police have registered a case, conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

4. Heard Sri Ramesha H.N., learned counsel appearing for Sri Narayanaswamy K.N., learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Asma Kouser, learned Addl. SPP for the respondent No.1 and Sri Srinath B.V., learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is aged about 19 years. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He is innocent of the alleged offences. In fact, the petitioner was unaware of

HC-KAR

the victim’s actual age. The petitioner is the earning member of the family and he is the permanent resident of Hongasandra, Bengaluru. He will abide by the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

6. Per contra, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 – State vehemently submitted that the age of the victim is 15 years 3 months. She was kidnapped by the petitioner and taken to Tamil Nadu, where they stayed for three to four days. Thereafter, they returned to Bengaluru and stayed in Hongasandra. Though it is alleged that the petitioner married the victim and that they were living together and she has now given birth to a child, the fact remains that the victim is a minor and the petitioner has committed a heinous offence against the minor, which is an unpardonable act committed by the petitioner against a minor girl. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submissions, the learned Additional

HC-KAR

SPP for respondent No.1 - State prays to reject the petition.

7. Similarly, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the victim has given birth to a child. The victim is before this Court and she states that she is willing to stay along with the petitioner. The petitioner is the earning member of the family. If he is released on bail, he will take care of the victim and the child. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and prays to allow the petition.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments of the complaint and also the charge sheet, it appears that the petitioner is aged about 19 years and the victim is aged about 15 years 3 months. Both have eloped from their respective houses and it is stated that they had been to Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu. Again, they came to Bengaluru and stayed in Hongasandra. It is stated in the charge sheet that the

HC-KAR

petitioner married the victim and now, she has given birth to a child. Today, the victim / respondent No.2 is present before this Court and has stated that she is willing to stay along with the petitioner. Considering the said facts and circumstances and also the submission of the respondent No.2, it is appropriate to grant him bail as the petitioner has to take care of the victim and the child.

9. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Spl.C.C.No.2377/2025 pending on the file of learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.265/2024 registered by the respondent-police for the offences stated supra, on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one

HC-KAR

surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

(v) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities till disposal of the case. In case the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21