- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1455 CRL.P No. 100011 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100011 OF 2025 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: PRADEEP S/O. CHANDRAPPA MALAGI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUNCHUR, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS HANSABHAVI POLICE STATION, HIREKERUR CIRCLE, HIREKERUR, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. (U/SEC. 483 OF B.N.S.S. 2023) SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.53/2024 OF HANSABHAVI POLICE STATION (PRESENTLY PENDING IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.605/2024) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC.323, 354(A), 354-C, 376(2) AND 506 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C. COURT HIREKERUR HAVERI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.27 14:48:46 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1455 CRL.P No. 100011 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is for grant of regular bail in Crime no.53/2024 by Hansabhavi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354A, 354C, 376 (2) and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) by sole accused. 2. Sri Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was that complaint was filed by Smt.Guttevva (complainant) on 28.03.2024, alleging about 2:30 p.m. on 15.03.2024, while she was resting due to illness, petitioner who lived nearby and was related to her, came with a bottle containing some liquid, which he asked her to consume by claiming it would cure her illness. When she consumed it by believing him, she felt dizzy and fell unconscious. While she was in that state, petitioner was stated to have removed her saree, blouse and petticoat. She was unable to oppose same as she was unconscious. At that time, petitioner began video recording on his mobile and came on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1455 CRL.P No. 100011 of 2025 her. She stated further, by making her drink some liquid to make her unconscious, he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. After regaining consciousness, she found him lying on her naked. When she pushed him away, he threatened her by stating that he had recorded video of his act and would circulate same to everyone, in case she disclosed it to anyone and left after kicking her chest. 3. Due to same, she felt dejected and was unable to disclose incident to anyone. But on 27.03.2024, when she went for coolie work, Sridhar from her village came there along with Ganesh s/o Chandrappa, Guttennavar, Sanjeev s/o Choudappa Badakannavar, Ramesh s/o Bharamappa Badakannavar and informed her that petitioner had showed them video recording of his sexual act with her and that he was advised not to do same. But in order to prevent him from doing same to any other, they had come there to enquire. She confirmed incident and disclosed that due to threat given by petitioner, she had kept quiet. Due to same, she intended to commit suicide, but her relatives told her that she was not at fault and accompanied her to file complaint. Based on same, Crime no.53/2024 was registered by Hansabhavi Police Station. It was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1455 CRL.P No. 100011 of 2025 submitted that, on 28.03.2024, petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. In meantime, investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed on 18.06.2024. 4. It was firstly submitted, that complaint was written by Ramappa Durgappa Hittalmani and signed by complainant without statement that she had signed it by subscribing to its contents. It was further submitted, even as per complainant alleged incident took place on 15.03.2024, but complaint was filed on 28.03.2024, after delay but without any explanation. It was submitted while drawing spot mahazar and panchanama, Investigation Officer (‘I.O.’ for short) failed to note whether panchas identified place and petitioner and complainant in video shown by petitioner to them. Moreover, while in her complaint as well as statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC, she had stated that petitioner at time of incident, petitioner had removed her saree, but in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC before Magistrate, she had stated that petitioner removed her nighty, only due to fact that I.O. had seized her nighty along with other clothes. Same, indicated that complaint was filed with malafide intention to harass petitioner. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1455 CRL.P No. 100011 of 2025 5. It was submitted petitioner was just 21 years of age, having respect in society and without any criminal antecedents. It was submitted that petitioner was law abiding citizen and permanent resident of above said address having both movable and immovable properties, apart from old aged parents. Therefore prayed for grant of bail on any conditions which would be complied. 6. On other hand, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition. It was submitted, offences alleged were heinous and committed against woman. Complaint contained specific overt acts implicating petitioner. During investigation, prosecution had recovered mobile phone used for recording video. Prosecution had recorded statements of persons (CW-10 to 13) to whom petitioner had shown video recording of his act and which also implicated petitioner. It was further submitted, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC, complainant had by and large deposed in terms of her complaint. 7. It was submitted absence of antecedents cannot by itself be ground for seeking bail. It was submitted, since - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1455 CRL.P No. 100011 of 2025 petitioner lived nearby house of complainant and was also stated to be relative, there was every likelihood of petitioner influencing prosecution witnesses. On above grounds, sought rejection of petition. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 9. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail on conditions?” 10. This petition for regular bail is by sole accused in Crime no.53/2024 (supra) for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354A, 354C, 376 (2) and 506 of IPC, among which offences under Sections 323, 354 and 506 are bailable and non-bailable only under Section 376 (2) of IPC, where it is punishable with imprisonment for upto 10 years and fine. Thus insofar as said offence, allegations against petitioner are serious. 11. As per complaint averments, petitioner by falsely assuring complainant that liquid he had, would cure her illness made her to drink it and when she fell unconscious as a result - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1455 CRL.P No. 100011 of 2025 of consumption, he had forcibly indulged in sexual intercourse with her and had also video recorded the act and threatened her with circulation of same in case she revealed it to anyone. It also contains her allegation that petitioner had thereafter shown video recording to others. Though as per learned HCGP same would cover ingredients for offences alleged, learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out to several inconsistencies and contradictions in prosecution case. 12. Firstly there is delay of 13 days in filing complaint. Whether same is satisfactorily explained would require consideration. There is also prima facie inconsistency about clothes which complainant was wearing at time of incident. Most of entries in Medical Examination Reports are ‘DNK’ i.e. do not know. Even grounds urged about lack of verification of contents of complaint and I.O. recording that panchas had identified about video being related to incident etc. also prima facie appear formidable and require consideration. 13. Apart from above, it is seen petitioner aged 21 years has been in custody for nearly ten months and charge sheet is already filed. Prosecution has not denied or disputed - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1455 CRL.P No. 100011 of 2025 that there are no criminal antecedents and that petitioner is permanent resident with family members having movable and immovable properties at Kunchur. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held purpose of bail is to secure appearance of accused at trial and it can be neither punitive nor preventative. It is further held, deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment and that punishment begins only after conviction and until then every accused would be deemed to be innocent. In light of above and as concerns of prosecution can be addressed by imposing suitable conditions, point for consideration is answered in affirmative. Hence, following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail in Crime no.53/2024 by Hansabhavi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354A, 534C, 376 (2) and 506 of IPC, subject to following conditions: a) He shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for likesum to satisfaction of Court. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1455 CRL.P No. 100011 of 2025 b) He shall not threaten, tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. c) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities. d) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. e) It is clarified that views expressed herein are prima facie at this stage and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14