KIRAN N S Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant who is accused No.4, has preferred this appeal against the order dtd. 15/7/2025, passed in Special Case No.9 of 2025 by the Additional Sessions-FTSC-II, Mandya under sec. 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the trial Court").

(2.) Brief facts leading to this appeal, are that K.R. Pet, Rural Police, registered Crime No.235 of 2024 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 376(3), 376(2)(n), 375DA, 450, 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 4, 5(G), 5(K), 5(L), 6 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short "the POCSO Act") and under Sec. 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short "the SC/ST (PoA) Act").

(3.) First informant who is the mother of victim-girl, has filed typed first information alleging that on 29/10/2024, she had taken her minor daughter to the hospital for medical checkup. The doctor at the hospital, after medically examining the victim-girl, informed the first informant that the victim girl was pregnant. Upon Enquiry, the victim girl allegedly informed the first informant that five persons whose name are in the First Information Report had sexual intercourse with her, and as a result, she had conceived. Then the first informant approached the police and based on her complaint, FIR was registered. The police have arrested appellant/accused No.4 on 10/11/2024 and produced him before the Magistrate. He was remanded to judicial custody. After investigation, investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Ss. 376(3), 376(2)(n), 375DA, 450, 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 4, 5(G), 5(K), 5(L), 6 and 10 of POCSO Act and under Ss. 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The present appellant filed bail application under Sec. 483 of BNSS, 2023, which came to be allowed on the ground of parity. Subsequently, it came to light that accused No.3, while seeking bail from the special court, suppressed the material fact that his earlier bail application had been rejected by this court. Upon discovering the concealment, the learned special court, without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant, suo motu proceeded to cancel the bail which was granted not only to the accused No.3, but also to the appellant/accused No.4 and other accused by common order dtd. 15/7/2025.