The Karnataka High Court granted bail to a man booked under the POCSO Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in a case arising from the alleged sexual assault of a minor in a brothel. The court observed that a customer of a brothel cannot be expected to know the actual age or caste of a victim, and accordingly set aside the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge which had denied bail.
Justice S Rachaiah, hearing the criminal appeal, noted that having heard counsel for the parties and perused the averments in the charge-sheet, it was clear that the appellant was one of the customers of the brothel run by accused No. 1. The court found the submission of the appellant's counsel to be justified, namely that as a customer, he could not possibly know the victim's actual age or caste.
The court stated: 'Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also on perusal of the averments of the charge-sheet it makes clear that the appellant is one of the customer of the brothel which was being run by accused No.1. On going through the averments of the said charge-sheet, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has to be justified for the reasons that the appellant being a customer of the brothel cannot be possible to know the actual age and caste of the victim. Having considered the said aspect, it is appropriate to grant the relief as prayed for.'
While granting bail, the court directed the appellant to execute a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh and imposed several conditions. He was directed not to commit any similar offence until the disposal of the case, to appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates, and not to threaten prosecution witnesses.
The prosecution's case, as outlined in the charge-sheet, alleged that the minor victim was forced into prostitution by her own father and subjected to sexual assault by multiple men. After the girl informed her relatives, an FIR was filed. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed against several accused under various provisions including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Appearing for the appellant, counsel submitted that the accused was innocent and had no knowledge that the victim was a minor or belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The appellant sought bail and undertook to comply with all conditions imposed by the court.
Opposing the bail plea, the High Court Government Pleader argued that the minor complainant had suffered serious mental trauma. The prosecution contended that the appellant was aware of the victim's age and caste and had knowingly committed the offence against her.
The court, however, found merit in the appellant's position regarding lack of knowledge, particularly given his status as a customer in the brothel, and allowed the criminal appeal. The order of the lower court denying bail was set aside, and the appellant was enlarged on bail subject to the stated conditions.
The case is registered as Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 2026 (under Section 14(A)(2)) and is titled A vs State of Karnataka.