Karnataka High Court Declines Anticipatory Bail To Movie Theatre Owner Accused Of Stalking, Sexually Harassing Minor Student

The Karnataka High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a 52-year-old cinema theatre owner accused of stalking and sexually harassing a class 9 minor student.

The complainant alleged that the accused, who owns Shankar Talkies, made explicit threats over the phone that she and her friends should sleep with him; otherwise, he would stab her.

The single judge bench of Justice R Nataraj dismissed the petition filed by Manjunatha N, who has been charged by the Ramanagara Town Police for a slew of offences including those under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Court noted in the order that the minor victim had previously complained about inappropriate touching and stalking by the theatre owner. Subsequent to the said complaint, the petitioner-accused allegedly escalated the harassment meted out to the student by sending a group of boys to threaten her with murder and acid attack.

"…It appears that the petitioner had telephoned the victim girl and asked her to sleep with him and also to take her friends to sleep with him. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader, there is prima facie material against the petitioner and in view of Section 18 [Bar on Anticipatory Bail] of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAHANA JALAL supra, petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail" the Court observed.

Rejecting the anticipatory bail, the court also noted the age disparity between the petitioner and the minor child in its order.

The complaint by the minor girl dated March 18, 2026 suggested that the accused theatre owner is known to her through a friend and she had even stopped attending school for the academic year 2024-25 due to his persistent harassment.

As per the prosecution version, after she filed a complaint about the petitioner staking her on her way back from school and touching her inappropriately, the harassment intensified.

The state further submitted that on March 14, the petitioner approached the victim nearby her house and called her casteist slurs, followed by a group of boys barging into her house to make death threats against her and her grandmother.

The police, thereafter, registered an FIR for offences under Sections 352 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 329(4) (sexual harassment), r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 8(sexual assault) and 12(sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act, 2012 as well as Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

To the contrary, the accused theatre owner contended before the High Court that he knew the victim since she and her friends were contacting him for movie tickets. The accused claimed that the victim blackmailed him to extract gold, money and other immovable property, and his refusal to accede to her demands has led to the filing of the current complaint.

HCGP for the state submitted that serious allegations against the accused warranted custodial interrogation, especially in light of the alleged telephonic conversation between the victim and the accused. Since SC/ST (POA) offences are also involved, if prima facie evidence of commission of such offences is present, no bail under Section 438 CrPC can be given as per the dictum in Rahna Jalal, the counsel further said.

While rejecting the anticipatory bail plea after hearing both parties, the high court clarified that if the petitioner appears before the Trial Court and files an application under Section 483 of BNSS (regular bail), the Trial Court shall consider the application 'as far as possible on the same day and pass appropriate orders'.

Case Title: Sri Manjunatha N. v. State of Karnataka & Another

Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 7025 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order