Karnataka HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Repeatedly Sexually Assaulting Disabled Minor; Allows Fresh Plea After Victim And Material Witnesses Are Examined

The petitioner, accused No. 1, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 5(l), 5(j) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the victim, aged about 15 years and 9 months and described as specially disabled, was repeatedly sexually assaulted by the petitioner.

The victim’s statements to police and the Magistrate implicated him; the petitioner disputed the allegations and relied, among other matters, on the absence of his name in the Magistrate’s statement, the DNA report, and the bail granted to accused No. 2.

The investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.

The petitioner had been in custody since 10 May 2026.

The Special Court had rejected his bail application.

The Court considered the bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to the alleged offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 5(l), 5(j) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

It noted that Section 6 of the POCSO Act prescribes a minimum term of 20 years’ imprisonment, which may extend to imprisonment for the remainder of the offender’s natural life.

The Court applied no cited precedent; its assessment turned on the seriousness of the alleged offence, the prosecution material, the risk of witness tampering or trial interference, and the circumstances supporting or distinguishing parity.

The Court found that the victim’s statements to the police and the Magistrate contained specific allegations implicating the petitioner, and that the asserted omission of his name from the Magistrate’s statement did not warrant bail because the Court understood the names given there to refer to the petitioner and accused No. 2.

It held that the DNA report’s failure to identify the petitioner as the child’s biological father was not, at the bail stage, sufficient to discredit the prosecution case.

The grant of bail to accused No. 2 did not establish parity: that accused was about 84 years old and suffered from ailments, circumstances not shown to apply to the petitioner.

The Court further considered the gravity of the alleged offence, the potential for witness tampering, and concluded that the petitioner’s period in custody and the filing of the charge sheet did not, in the circumstances, justify release.

It left the petitioner at liberty to apply to the Trial Court/Special Judge for bail after examination of the victim and other material witnesses.