Bharanitharan vs State of Karnataka - Bail Cancellation

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 3, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Mr.Bharanitharan vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15946
CRL.P No. 16870 of 2025

                    HC-KAR

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                             DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                              BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.16870 OF 2025
                                 (439(2)([Cr.PC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/))/483(3)(BNSS))

                   BETWEEN:

                   MR. BHARANITHARAN S/O. SETHU PONNUSWAMY,
                   AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
                   R/AT. B901, G.R RICHMOND PARK,
                   LAKE ROAD, GOTTIGERE, BENGALURU-560083.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. ROHITH KASHYAP M.S., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        BY HULIMAVU POLICE STATION,
                        BENGALURU-560083, REPRESENTED BY
                        ITS S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING,

VISHAL BENGALURU-560001.
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL 2. MR. SURESH BALAJI P,
Digitally signed by
S/O. PANNEER SELVAM,
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA R/AT. NO. 215, HPS COMPLEX,
DHARWAD BENCH
NOBEL RESIDENCY ROAD,
DODDA KAMMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560083.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. PRAVEEN C., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

                         THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439(2) CR.P.C (U/S
                   483(3) BNSS) PRAYING TO DIRECT THE BAIL GRANTED TO
                   RESPONDENT NO.2/ACCUSED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.10.2025 IN
                   CRL.P.NO.10423/2025 AND DIRECT HIS IMMEDIATE ARREST AND
                   REMAND TO JUDICIAL CUSTODY; DIRECT A FRESH INQUIRY INTO
                   THE HANDLING OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE RECOVERED FROM THE
                   ACCUSED; AND ETC.
                           -2-
                                       NC: 2026:KHC:15946
                                 CRL.P No. 16870 of 2025

HC-KAR

  THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                    ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the complainant under [Section

483 (3)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/291563/) of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS'

for short) praying to cancel the bail granted to respondent

No.2-accused vide order dated 28.10.2025 passed in Crl.P.

No.10423/2025 and direct him to surrender before the trial

Court.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1-State. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-accused is

absent.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

that the petitioner is receiving several phone calls and one of

them is from one Varadarajan and he is the relative of

respondent No.2-accused, in that regard, the petitioner had

made a complaint and it is registered in NCR No.1618/2025

before the Hulimavu Police Station. The respondent No.2- -3- NC: 2026:KHC:15946 CRL.P No. 16870 of 2025 HC-KAR

accused is stated to have had physical relationship with

several other girls as reported in several news papers which

are produced at Annexure-B and they are reported on the

basis of the statements made by the Police officials. Hence, it

is submitted that there is more gravity of the offence alleged

against the respondent No.2-accused. The petitioner made

enquiry with the Police with regard to the said aspect and

Police told him that Police have not received any other

complaint from any other girls. He further submits that it is

a duty of the Police under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, to

intimate the jurisdictional Police or register a case in that

regard. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.

1. The learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State would contend that he has no

instructions regarding what is the further course of action in

NCR No.1618/2025.

1. Having heard the learned counsel and the

learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has -4- NC: 2026:KHC:15946 CRL.P No. 16870 of 2025 HC-KAR

perused the order granting bail to the respondent No.2-

accused and the other materials placed on record.

1. The bail granted can be cancelled for violation of

conditions imposed in the order. One of the conditions

imposed in the order dated 28.10.2025 is that, the accused

shall not temper the prosecution witnesses either directly, or

indirectly. It is alleged that one Varadarajan has made a

phone call to the petitioner asking him to withdraw the

complaint and the said Varadarajan is stated to be a relative

of respondent No.2-accused. In that regard, the petitioner

has made a complaint and it is registered in NCR

No.1618/2025 at Hulimavu Police Station. The said NCR is

registered on 29.11.2025, what is the investigation in the

said NCR or enquiry by the Police is not placed on record.

Whether the said conversation is related to respondent No.2-

accused is also not placed on record and what is the

conversation between the Varadarajan and petitioner which

is stated to have taken place for 19 minutes, is also not

placed on record. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said

that, the said Varadarajan is the relative of the respondent -5- NC: 2026:KHC:15946 CRL.P No. 16870 of 2025 HC-KAR

No.2-accused and at his instance he made a phone call to

the petitioner for withdrawing the complaint.

1. The paper cuttings produced at Annexure-B with

regard to the respondent No.2-accused as having physical

relationship with eight other girls and stated to have been

published at the instance of the Police, will not enhance the

gravity of the offence alleged against the respondent No.2-

accused as charge sheet filed is only pertaining to one victim

girl.

1. There is no violation of any of the conditions

imposed by this Court in the order dated 28.10.2025 passed

in Crl.P. No.10423/2025 and there are no grounds made out

for cancellation of bail. In the result, the petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE

PJ/CT:VH
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3