Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka, Single Bench of Justice S Rachaiah denied bail to 68-year-old accused along with others of the gang rape of a 14-year-old girl. The Court described the act of committing sexual assault by exploiting the victim’s poverty and community as a “ruthless act” and dismissed the appeal seeking release. The accused was charged under Sections 376(3), 376(2)(n), 376(DA) read with Section 149 of the IPC, along with provisions of the POCSO Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Bench held that the gravity of the offence outweighed the appellant’s age and refused to grant bail.

The case began when the mother of a 14-year-old girl took her to a government hospital in K.R. Pete on 29 October 2024, where doctors discovered she was pregnant. On enquiry, the girl disclosed that five men were responsible for her pregnancy. A criminal case was registered against them under provisions of the IPC, the POCSO Act, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad High Court Order | Says Trial Court Cannot Take Cognizance of Robbery Charge Solely on Witness Affidavits

The appellant, Channappar @ Rajaiah, aged 68, was identified as accused No.2. The prosecution alleged that the assaults occurred between 1 May 2024 and 30 June 2024. It was stated that the victim, a minor from a Scheduled Caste background who had left school during ninth standard, was lured with promises of food, clothes, and other inducements and was repeatedly assaulted by the appellant and others.

The appellant was arrested and placed in judicial custody on 23 December 2024. He filed an appeal challenging the trial court’s order dated 15 July 2025, which denied his bail plea. The appellant claimed that he was falsely implicated, that he suffered from old-age ailments, and that the DNA test conducted on the fetus did not implicate him. The prosecution opposed the appeal, relying on the victim’s statements and emphasizing the gravity of the offences and her age at the time of the assaults. The case involved charges under Sections 376(3), 376(2)(n), 376(DA), and 450 read with Section 149 of the IPC, alongside Sections 4, 5(G), 5(K), 5(L), 6, and 10 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

Justice S Rachaiah recorded that the victim, who had studied up to the eighth standard and left school during ninth standard, initially stated that she was sexually assaulted by her cousin brother and later by the appellant and other accused. The Court noted that the assaults were carried out “by inducing her that they would buy both eatables and new clothes etc., for her.”

The Court observed that “the act of committing sexual assault on the victim by taking advantage of her poverty and her innocence and also particular community is ruthless act.” It further stated that “the manner in which the appellant and others had committed sexual assault on the minor girl should be condemned, especially the appellant herein.”

Justice Rachaiah stated that “the appellant being an elderly person should have advised and instructed others not to commit such a heinous offence or he should have brought to the notice of elders of the village to prevent it. Instead he committed sexual assault which is outrageous.”

Also Read: Karnataka High Court : Fresh Notification Under S.21 Drugs & Cosmetics Act Not Required on Each Inspector’s Transfer, Dismisses Plea to Quash Prosecution of Pharmacist for Supplying Medicines to Unlicensed Practitioner

The Court concluded that despite the DNA evidence not linking the appellant to the pregnancy, the victim’s consistent statement and the overall nature of the offence were decisive in denying bail. It recorded that “the appellant is not deserved to be enlarged on bail, by suspending the sentence.”

Justice S Rachaiah stated: “The appeal stands dismissed.” The Court directed that the appellant remain in judicial custody during the pendency of the trial, citing the gravity of the allegations and the seriousness of the offences. No other relief or modification was granted in the appeal.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri Shankar H.S., Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Pushpalatha, High Court Government Pleader for Respondent No.1; Smt. Maitreyi Krishnan, Advocate for Respondent No.2

Case Title: State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Channappar @ Rajaiah
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:33971
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.1593 of 2025
Bench: Justice S Rachaiah