Karnataka High Court grants bail to man accused in case where a minor’s aunt allegedly arranged paid sex with multiple men

The petitioner, arrayed as Accused No. 6, sought regular bail in a case arising from Crime No. 47/2026, registered by Ramanagara Women Police Station, for alleged offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the victim, a minor, was introduced to Accused No. 1 by her aunt (Accused No. 2), who later summoned Accused Nos. 3 to 6 to her house, collected money, and permitted them to have sexual intercourse with the victim.

The petitioner contended that he was only a customer, that Accused No. 2 had represented the victim as an adult, and that the investigation was complete; the State opposed bail on the ground that the victim was a minor.

The petitioner was arrested on 20 July 2026, and his bail application before the Sessions Court was rejected on 20 August 2026.

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in light of the allegations involving sexual intercourse with a minor and the materials collected during investigation.

2. Whether the petitioner’s asserted role as a customer, the alleged suppression of the victim’s age by Accused No. 2, completion of the investigation, and absence of criminal antecedents supported his release on bail.

The Court considered the petitioner’s application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It considered the alleged offences under Section 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; Sections 4, 6 and 14 of POCSO; Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000; and Sections 65(1), 351(2) and 144(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court’s stated grounds for deciding bail were the nature of the allegations, the petitioner’s circumstances and role as presented, the completion of the investigation, and the absence of other criminal antecedents.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered the first information, the charge sheet, Accused No. 2’s statement that she had concealed the victim’s age and facilitated sexual intercourse for money, and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, which the Court found corroborated Accused No. 2’s account.

Although the State emphasised the victim’s minority, the Court held that the petitioner’s contention—that he was a customer and that Accused No. 2 had suppressed the victim’s age—could not be brushed aside.

Taking into account that the investigation was complete and the petitioner had no other criminal antecedents, the Court concluded that bail was warranted, subject to conditions.

Bail was subject to a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; regular appearance before the Trial Court unless exempted; no threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses; no involvement in similar offences; and no departure from the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without its permission until disposal of the case.