Karnataka HC Grants Bail to Brothel Customer in POCSO and SC/ST Act Case, Holds He Could Not Have Known Victim's Age or Caste

The Karnataka High Court allowed a bail appeal by a man accused as a brothel customer, holding that a customer cannot reasonably be expected to know a minor victim's age or Scheduled Caste status.

On 10 August 2026, Justice S. Rachaiah of the High Court of Karnataka, sitting singly at Bengaluru, allowed Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 2026 filed by Ajeya, aged 25 years, a resident of Udupi district, challenging a bail refusal order dated 25 March 2026 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Chikkamagaluru. Ajeya was arrayed as a customer of a brothel where a minor victim belonging to the Scheduled Caste community was allegedly subjected to sexual exploitation. The court found that a customer of a brothel cannot reasonably be expected to know the actual age or caste of a victim, and granted bail subject to conditions.

The Prosecution Case Before the Trial Court

The FIR was registered at Birur Police Station, Chikkamagaluru district, as Crime No. 218 of 2025. The case arose from a complaint lodged by the victim herself, who was the only child of her parents. Her mother had died six years earlier. Following her mother's death, the victim had been staying with her aunt Pavithra at Chitradurga. She completed her education up to I PUC across different schools and colleges but discontinued studies thereafter.

Around 18 December 2025, the victim accompanied her father to a hospital at Birur. They stayed at the grandmother's house. Due to instigation by the victim's aunt Pavithra, the grandmother asked them to leave. They were subsequently called back by accused No. 4, Narayanswamy, and returned to the grandmother's house on 20 December 2025.

On the same day, the victim was asked to travel to Mangaluru with her father and a person named Bharath Shetty for four days. Upon reaching Mangaluru, she was reportedly undergoing her menstrual cycle and stayed in the house of accused No. 1 for three days.

On 24 December 2025, the victim was allegedly directed to engage in sexual activities with men visiting the house. When she refused, her own father asked her to comply as instructed by accused No. 1. According to the charge-sheet, she was subjected to sexual activities with multiple men at that location until 26 December 2025. The group returned to Birur thereafter. The victim narrated the incident to her aunt Pavithra and uncle Sunil, who took her to the police station to lodge the complaint.

The case was registered against the appellant and others for offences punishable under Sections 54, 49, 61(2), 143, 144, 96, 65(1), and 127(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under Sections 4, 17, and 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, under Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and under Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

Arguments Raised in the Bail Appeal

Appearing for Ajeya, Sri Nishit Kumar Shetty, Advocate, submitted that the appellant was innocent of the alleged offences and was merely a customer of the brothel. Counsel contended that the appellant was not aware of the victim's actual age and equally had no knowledge that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. The defence stated that the appellant would abide by any conditions imposed by the court if granted bail.

Sri Channappa Erappa, High Court Government Pleader, argued strongly against bail. The prosecution contended that the victim, a young woman who had not yet completed 18 years, had been subjected to penetrative sexual assault by multiple men at the brothel. The State pointed to the conduct of the victim's father, who was arrayed as accused No. 2 and had effectively acted as a pimp to his own daughter, as indicative of the gravity of the offence. The prosecution further submitted that the appellant, as a customer, had knowingly committed a heinous offence with a minor victim who belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, and was not entitled to any relief.

How the Court Reasoned on Bail

Justice Rachaiah examined the averments in the charge-sheet and the submissions advanced by both sides. The court acknowledged that the appellant was indeed a customer of the brothel being run by accused No. 1. However, on a reading of the charge-sheet, the court found that the defence submission had to be accepted: a customer of a brothel cannot be placed in a position where he is reasonably expected to know the actual age or the caste of the victim. The court found this aspect, when considered in totality, to justify the grant of bail.

The court's reasoning drew a distinction between the operators and organisers of the alleged brothel network — including accused No. 1, the victim's father as accused No. 2, and others — and the appellant who was positioned as a customer. The charge-sheet averments, in the court's view, did not sufficiently establish that the appellant had knowledge of the victim being a minor or belonging to the Scheduled Caste community so as to disentitle him from bail at this stage.

The court did not enter findings on guilt. The observations were confined to the bail stage and to an assessment of whether the case for continued detention was made out against a customer of the alleged establishment.

Outcome

The Criminal Appeal was allowed. Ajeya was directed to be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh) with one surety to the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The following conditions were imposed:

• The appellant shall not commit any similar offence until disposal of the case.
• The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.
• The appellant shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.

The court further reserved liberty to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail if any of the conditions were violated.