- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2641 CRL.P No. 100229 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100229 OF 2025 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: KIRAN S/O. NEELAPPA PAWAR @ LAMANI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. POLICE CONSTABLE, R/O. SHIRAHATTI POLICE QUARTERS, SHIRAHATTI-582120, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG. … PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PSI, POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, SHIRAHATTI POLICE STATION, SHIRAHATTI-582120, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG, THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 483 OF BNSS, SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON REGULAR BAIL IN SHIRAHATTI P.S. CRIME NO.207/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES U/S. 64(2)(a)(i), 64(2)(a)(ii), 64(2)(m), 318(2), 308(2), 318(4), 351(2), 115(2) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 ON THE FILE OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG, PENDING TRIAL OF THE SAID CASE, WHO IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY IN THE ABOVE SAID CRIME. BHARATHI H M Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Date: 2025.02.11 14:17:09 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2641 CRL.P No. 100229 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 is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.207/2024 by Shirahatti Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 64 (2) (a) (i), 64 (2) (a) (ii), 64 (2) (m), 318 (2), 308 (2), 318 (4), 351 (2) and 115 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) by sole accused (Petitioner). 2. Sri Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, prosecution case was based on complaint filed on 24.12.2024, by victim herself alleging that petitioner had sexually assaulted her under threat and false promise of marrying her. She had friendship with petitioner as they did primary schooling and Pre University Course at same institution. Thus, they came in contact. After 2022 when petitioner got appointed as Police Constable, he misused friendship, destroyed her modesty, spoiled her reputation and rendered her lonely in society, by threatening her physically - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2641 CRL.P No. 100229 of 2025 and mentally. On one occasion, he had called her for some function at his relative’s house in Hoovinahadagali Kaluve. When she arrived at his relative’s house, believing his words, except petitioner there were no other. On enquiry, he stated they were at some other venue and would take her there and asked her to freshen up. When victim went to bathroom, he followed her and behaved mischievously. Despite her refusing consent, he raped her. When she began crying, he made her believe that he would marry her. She came to know that he had taken her nude photos and made videos on his mobile without her knowledge. Thereafter, misusing her trust and on pretext of marriage he had sexual intercourse with her more than 125 times. She also stated particulars of incidents of repeated rape beginning with incident of rape at Kaluve Tanda at Hadagali on 13.10.2022 till 23.08.2024 at Police Quarters at Shirahatti, were submitted by appending her mobile phone to complaint as well as her clothes torn during sexual assault by petitioner. It was alleged, apart from having sexual intercourse against her consent, petitioner had retained her videos in his mobile and by showing videos, he was threatening/warning her against asking him to marry her. It was alleged that he had - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2641 CRL.P No. 100229 of 2025 also threatened to expose photos/videos on social media platforms and force her to commit suicide. She further alleged that on strength of his employment in Police Department, he threatened to make her family members go to prison. In this manner, he extracted Rs.50,000/- through PhonePe and stated that same can be confirmed by checking call history and videos on petitioner’s mobile phone. Thereafter, when incident came to knowledge of her parents, they asked him to marry her. In response, petitioner threatened, in case same was informed to any other person, he would file complaint against them and have them arrested. Based on complaint, Crime no.207/2024 registered by Shirahatti Police Station for offences stated above. 3. Counsel for petitioner at outset submitted that there was delay in filing complaint. It was submitted, even as per victim, first incident occurred on 13.10.2022. But complaint is filed on 24.12.2024. Even if incident occurred between 13.10.2022 and 22.08.2024, there was no explanation for filing complaint after two months on 24.12.2024. Same would indicate it to be result of after thought. It was submitted, there was no recovery at instance of petitioner either photos or - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2641 CRL.P No. 100229 of 2025 videos from his mobile phone. Likewise there was no basis for allegation of extraction of Rs.50,000/- from victim. Thus there was no material directly implicating petitioner except self serving assertion by victim. It was submitted, fact that victim was 25 years old beyond age of majority and capable of consenting for any act. Thus having consented for sexual act, victim had later begun denying same. In any case, victim had continued to be in consensual relationship with petitioner for long duration and could not turn around to take advantage of petitioner being settled position in profession. 4. It was submitted, despite petitioner being Police, he was arrested on 25.12.2024, and was in judicial custody. Under above circumstances, denial of bail was likely to affect his career and cause hardship. On above grounds, sought for allowing petition. 5. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent-State sought to oppose petition. It was submitted, in complaint filed by victim specific overt acts were alleged for implicating petitioner. There was serious allegation about taking advantage of friendship, committing rape on victim, taking - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2641 CRL.P No. 100229 of 2025 photos and making videos and extracting Rs.50,000/- from her. Since offences alleged were punishable with imprisonment for not less than 10 years and upto imprisonment for life, they were heinous in nature. It was submitted, along with complaint, victim had tendered her clothes torn during incidents of sexual assault by petitioner as well as her mobile phone instrument. It was submitted, investigation was in progress, and Investigating Officer (IO) had seized mobile and sent to FSL for recovery of material on mobile phones. That apart, Medical Examination Report would show injuries being noted on her. Since petitioner was Police Constable, in case of his release on bail, there was likelihood of threatening of witnesses and hampering investigation and on above grounds sought for rejection of petition. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 7. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail on conditions?” 8. This petition is by accused seeking regular bail in Crime no.207/2024 by Shirahatti Police Station for offences - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2641 CRL.P No. 100229 of 2025 under Sections 64 (2) (a) (i), 64 (2) (a) (ii), 64 (2) (m), 318 (2), 308 (2), 318 (4), 351 (2) and 115 (2) of BNS i.e., for rape, repeated rape and rape by police officer under various sub provisions of Section 64 (2) of BNS punishable with rigorous imprisonment of not less than 10 years and extendable upto imprisonment for life (i.e. for remainder of life). While offence of cheating under Section 318 (2) of BNS would be punishable with imprisonment for upto 3 years; offence of cheating by dishonestly inducing person to deliver property under Section 318 (4) of BNS punishable with imprisonment for upto 7 years; offence of criminal intimidation under Section 351 (2) of BNS punishable with imprisonment for upto 2 years; offence of extortion under Section 308 (2) of BNS punishable with imprisonment for upto 7 years and offence of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 115 (2) of BNS punishable with imprisonment for upto 1 year. Thus offences alleged are heinous and grave in nature. 9. However, petitioner refutes allegations and contends fact that victim admitted to have known petitioner since childhood, allegation of rape 125 times from 13.10.2022 to 23.08.2024 would rather indicate same to be consensual sexual - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2641 CRL.P No. 100229 of 2025 intercourse than rape and also render complaint filed on 24.12.2024, highly belated. Though extortion was alleged, money transfer records on mobile phone would indicate transfer of small amounts intermittently. While, prosecution contends about clear and specific overt acts of rape made in complaint apart from threat, recovery of photos and videos and details of money transfer to contend sufficient basis for charges. 10. Admittedly, investigation is still ongoing and charge-sheet is not yet filed. Indeed petitioner’s contention about delay in filing complaint i.e., more than two years from date of first incident and more than two months after last incident would appear substantial, victim has claimed that same is due to threat by petitioner to publish her photos/videos on social media as well as inducing her with false promise of marriage would require consideration. Fact that matter is still under investigation would deter this Court from testing said contention at this stage. 11. In view of recovery of photos, videos and money transaction from petitioner’s mobile phone, it cannot be - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2641 CRL.P No. 100229 of 2025 concluded at this stage that there is no basis for allegations by victim or case of substantial doubt about prosecution case is indicated. Under above circumstances, petitioner’s claim for bail on ground that it was likely to affect his service would not be sufficient to consider petitioner’s claim for bail at this stage when investigation is still pending and prosecution case is supported by some material. Hence, point for consideration is answered in negative. Hence following ORDER Petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE RH CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4