- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2316 CRL.P No. 100200 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100200 OF 2025 [438(Cr.PC)/482(BNSS)] BETWEEN: MANJUNATH S/O. ARJUNAPPA KELUR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. H. AREGOPPA, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI, PIN CODE-581104. … PETITIONER (BY SRI B.S. KUKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HANGAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENETED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, S.P.P. OFFICE, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011. 2. SMT. RENUKA W/O. CHANDRAPPA MADIWALAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. H. AREGOPPA, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI, PIN CODE-581104. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; R2-NOTICE SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 OF BNSS (U/S. 438 OF CR.P.C., 1973), SEEKING TO PASS AN ORDER GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 AND DIRECTING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN SPL.S.C.NO.76/2024 (HANGAL P.S. CRIME NO.159/2024) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 363, 366, 342, 376, 201 OF IPC, U/S. 4, 6, 8, 12, 17 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, AND U/S. 9, 10 OF THE PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, HAVERI. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.07 16:35:58 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2316 CRL.P No. 100200 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) is seeking for anticipatory bail in Crime no.159/2024 of Hangal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short); Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short) and Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (‘PCM Act’ for short), by accused no.2 (petitioner). 2. Sri BS Kukanagoudar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was, Smt.Renuka Madiwalar (complainant) filed complaint on 20.06.2024 stating that after death of her husband - Chandrappa, she was residing with her daughter (victim) aged 17 years 7 months and her son by doing agriculture. On 19.06.2024, when she left home at 7:00 a.m. and came back from work at 5:00 p.m., she did not find victim at home. On enquiry, her son informed that victim had - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2316 CRL.P No. 100200 of 2025 left home at 12:00 p.m. to get groceries from society. But, had not returned. Even after searching nearby with her son and enquiring with relatives, complainant was unable to trace victim. Therefore, she apprehended that victim was either missing or accused no.1 had kidnapped her. 3. It was submitted, initially complaint was registered as Crime no.159/2024 by Hangal Police Station under Section 363 of IPC against accused no.1 only. In course of investigation, Investigating Officer (‘IO' for short), secured victim and recorded her statement under Section 161 of CrPC., on 17.07.2024. Victim stated that while she was studying PUC, she became acquainted with accused no.1, who was from her village and they fell in love with each other. During March when she was at home and called accused no.1 with her brother’s phone, he informed her about going to Maharashtra for livelihood. On 18.06.2024, when she met accused no.1, they decided to elope and get married. And on 19.06.2024 at 11:00 a.m. she left home met accused no.1 and they went to Hubballi by Bus and then to Yallamma Temple at Soundatti, where they exchanged garlands and accused no.1 tied sacred thread on her neck in presence of Vinayak (Accused no.6). Thereafter, they - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2316 CRL.P No. 100200 of 2025 went to Maharashtra. On 20.06.2024, accused no.1 took her to a place where he was working earlier and stayed in a room. At night, accused no.1 told her that their marriage would be accepted, if they have children. On that pretext he had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter on 21.06.2024, they returned to Belagavi and spent time at Bus stand and Railway station and on 24.06.2024, accused no.1 asked petitioner to come to Shiggaon. On reaching Shiggaon at 7:00 p.m. accused no.1 told victim that he would go to Kerala for livelihood and asked her to stay with petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner took her to house of accused no.3 at Hale Bankapur and left her. On 17.07.2024, IO found her there. 4. It was submitted, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC before Magistrate, victim merely stated that she was in love with accused no.1 since four years and with intention to marry him, she had gone with him to Hubballi – Dharwad on 19.06.2024 and got married. Thereafter, they went to Maharashtra via Belagavi for two days and returned to Bankapur via Hubballi, to be traced by Police. She also specifically stated that she voluntarily had sexual intercourse and accused no.1 did not subject her to any force/trouble. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2316 CRL.P No. 100200 of 2025 5. It was submitted, entire case of prosecution and complaint was mainly against accused no.1. Only reference to petitioner was in victim’s statement under Section 161 of CrPC where she merely stated that petitioner took her to house of accused no.3 and left her there. But same is not included in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. 6. It was submitted that charge-sheet was filed on 03.09.2024 for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376, 201 of IPC; Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act and Sections 9 and 10 of PCM Act. But, only provision that would be relevant against petitioner was Section 342 of IPC stipulating punishment for wrongful confinement. However as per Section 340 of IPC, wrongful confinement would occur only where any person is wrongfully restrained in such manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. 7. It was submitted, there were no such assertion, either in complaint or statements recorded. Therefore, petitioner had not committed any offence and was innocent. It was submitted, he was law abiding and had maintained respectful reputation. But as several provisions invoked in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2316 CRL.P No. 100200 of 2025 charge-sheet were non-bailable, he had apprehension of being arrested, which would destroy his reputation. On above grounds, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail on suitable conditions. 8. Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent no.1 - State opposed petition. It was submitted, victim was 17 years and 7 months of age at time of incident. As per victim, accused no.1 was acquainted with her since several years and would have known that she was a minor. Despite same, accused no.1 took her away from home and had sexual intercourse with her. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Independent Thought v. Union of India, reported in 2017 (10) SCC 800, consent of victim would be irrelevant where she was aged below 18 years. After completion of investigation, prosecution had filed charge-sheet against petitioner alleging several heinous offences. It was submitted, matter was awaiting commencement of trial. Therefore, this was not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2316 CRL.P No. 100200 of 2025 10. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail with conditions?” 11. Though, initially Crime no.159/2024 was registered only against accused no.1 for offence under Section 363 of IPC, charge-sheet is filed by arraigning petitioner as accused no.2. Though learned HCGP sought to contend that several offences invoked against accused are heinous and severe, only offence alleged against petitioner was under Section 342 of IPC were apparently based on statement of victim recorded under Section 161 of CrPC and which were in any case without allegations to substantiate basic ingredients. And there were absolutely no assertions against petitioner in statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. 12. In view of arraignment of petitioner in charge-sheet as accused no.2, petitioner had substantiated apprehension of his arrest, while prima facie consideration of allegations would not substantiate offences against him. Prosecution has not alleged criminal antecedents against petitioner. Petitioner is permanent resident of H. Aregoppa, Hangal Taluk, having immovable property and unlikely to flee justice. Therefore, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2316 CRL.P No. 100200 of 2025 point for consideration is answered in affirmative. Hence, following: ORDER Petition is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner/accused no.2 shall be enlarged on bail, in case of his arrest in Crime no.159/2024 of Hangal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376, 201 of IPC; Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act and Sections 9 and 10 of PCM Act, subject to following conditions: a) Petitioner shall appear before Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Haveri, within 15 days from date of this order and execute personal bond for sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of Court. b) He shall appear before Investigating Officer for purpose of investigation as and when required and co-operate with investigation. c) He shall not threaten, tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. d) He shall not leave jurisdiction of above Court without prior permission, until completion of trial. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2316 CRL.P No. 100200 of 2025 e) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities. f) It is clarified that all observation herein would be prima facie and not binding on trial Court. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8