- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2944 CRL.P No. 200678 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200678/2025 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: NANDAPPA @ NANDKUMAR S/O MAHADEV KATTIMANI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. RUSTUMPUR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT KALLUR ROAD, TQ.CHINCHOLI, DIST.KALABURAGI-585 316. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SANGOLI NAGANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH MIRYAN POLICE TQ. CHINCHOLI, DIST. KALABURAGI – 586 101, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH. Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2944 CRL.P No. 200678 of 2025 2. XXXX D/O XXXXXX AGED 17 YEARS, U/N/G/MOTHER SMT. SUBHADRAMMA W/O JAGANNATH HOSMANI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. RUSTUMPUR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT KALLUR ROAD, TQ.CHINCHOLI, DIST.KALABURAGI – 585 316. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP, FOR R1; R2-NOTICE SERVED, BUT UN-REPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C.(OLD)/SECTION 483 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION, THEREBY, ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.7/2025, REGISTERED BY MIRYAN POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHALBE UNDER SECTIONS 64(2)(m) AND 137(2) OF BNSS, 2023, AND SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, PENDING ON THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.) AND JMFC, CHINCHOLI, KALABURAGI DISTRICT, AGAINST THE ACCUSED/ PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard learned counsel Sri Sangoli Naganna for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil for respondent No.1-State. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2944 CRL.P No. 200678 of 2025 2. This petition is filed by the accused under Section 483 of BNSS, praying to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.07/2025 registered by the respondent-Police Station for the offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 137(2) of BNSS, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, pending before the Principal Civil Judge and (Jr.Dn.), Chicholi, Kalaburagi District. 3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 The mother of the victim girl lodged a complaint with Miryan Police contending that her daughter, aged 17 years, discontinued her education after completion of her 10th standard and was staying in the house. They were looking for an alliance with their acquaintance and the engagement ceremony was also fixed. In the meantime, the petitioner, who is aged 30 years, visited Kallur Village for labour work and was residing next door and had developed intimacy with the victim girl. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2944 CRL.P No. 200678 of 2025 3.2 When the matter stood thus, on 14.02.2025 at about 09.00 p.m., as usual, complainant, her husband and her children after taking dinner went to bed; at about 11.30 p.m., when she got up from the sleep, she noticed that victim girl was not found in the house; she thought that the victim girl must have gone out to attend the nature call and waited for sometime; when she did not return in reasonable time, she woke up her husband and others and all of them kept in search for victim girl, but she was not traced. 3.3 Later on they doubted the present petitioner and they went into his house and noticed that he was also absconding from his house and his phone was switched off. They searched for the victim girl and the petitioner in Rustumpur Village, but all their efforts went in vain. 3.4 Left with no alternative mother of the victim girl lodged the complaint on 15.02.2025. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2944 CRL.P No. 200678 of 2025 4. Initially, the Police registered the case in Crime No.7/2025 for the offence under Section 137(2) of BNS, traced the victim girl and recorded the statement. Later on Police invoked Section 64(2) of BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Petitioner was arrested by the Investigation Agency on 17.02.2025. Petitioner sought for grant of bail before the Trial Judge, as the same is rejected by the learned Trial Judge, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contented that charge- sheet might have been filed before the Trial Court and therefore, continuation of the petitioner in custody is no longer warranted and sought for grant of bail. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the grant of bail by contending that, admittedly, the victim girl is under the age of 18 years and therefore, Police have rightly invoked Sections 4 and 6 of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2944 CRL.P No. 200678 of 2025 the POCSO Act based on the statement given by the victim girl after she was traced from the custody of the petitioner and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. 7. He would also contend that the theory put forward on behalf of the petitioner that victim girl alone on her volition accompanied the accused in order to avoid the alliance fixed by her parents cannot be countenanced in law, inasmuch as victim being under the age of 18 years, she could not have given consent for the sexual assault that has taken place on her and sought for dismissal of the petition. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the victim is under the age of 18 years. According to complaint, she is 17 years old. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2944 CRL.P No. 200678 of 2025 9. Admittedly, she was traced in the company of the accused and based on her statement investigation agency have invoked Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. 10. Taking note of age of the victim girl, her consent if any cannot be considered as consent in the eye of law in view of the authoritative principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of INDEPENDENT THOUGHT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER1. 11. Further, at the time of considering the bail request, this Court cannot hold a mini trial to find out whether victim girl on her volition accompanied the accused or not. 12. Accordingly, at this stage, since the charge- sheet materials are not placed by the counsel petitioner, the material on record would be sufficient enough to deny the bail to the petitioner. 1 (2017) 10 Supreme Court Cases 800 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2944 CRL.P No. 200678 of 2025 13. However, it is always open for the petitioner to renew his request for grant of bail if there is a positive changed circumstance in his case after the examination of material witnesses. Therefore, the following: ORDER i. The petition is dismissed. ii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to renew his request for grant of bail after examination of material witnesses. Sd/- (V. SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT:PK