- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2341 CRL.P No. 100428 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.100428 OF 2025 [438(Cr.PC)/482(BNSS)] BETWEEN: YALLALING S/O. SIDDAPPA DANDIN, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. CONSTABLE, R/O. BUDAGA JANGAMA, SHIRUR VILLAGE, DISTRICT: BAGALKOTE-580000. … PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA V.NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SUB URBAN P.S. DHARWAD, R/BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 OF BNSS, SEEKING TO GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN APPREHENSION IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.265/2024 BEFORE DHARWAD SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 64(1), 69, 115(2), 352, 351(3) OF BNS 2023 AND REGISTERED BEFORE SUB URBAN POLICE STATION, DISTRICT DHARWAD PENDING ON THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) JMFC COURT DHARWAD. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.07 14:21:06 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2341 CRL.P No. 100428 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) seeking for anticipatory bail in Crime no.265/2024 of Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 64 (1), 69, 115 (2), 352, 351 (3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘BNS’ for short), by sole accused (petitioner). 2. Sri Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned counsel for petitioner submitted Sri Yallaling was a 27 year old Police Constable and permanent resident of Shirur, village, who had not committed any offences, but was apprehending arrest for non-bailable offences in view of registration of Crime no.265/2024 (supra) arraigning him as accused. It was submitted, complaint was totally false and filed to spoil his reputation. 3. It was submitted, even in complaint filed on 20.12.2024, Ms.Rajeshwari (complainant), stated that after completion of Engineering, she worked as Software Engineer at Bengaluru for some time, but was currently residing at Shirur - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2341 CRL.P No. 100428 of 2025 with her brother and mother. She stated she knew petitioner since childhood and they were in love, without anyone from their families knowing about it. When petitioner was working as Surveyor at Hungund, he had taken her to his room on several occasions on promise of marriage and when she was working at Bengaluru, he often visited her. But, when she enquired about marriage, he postponed it on some pretext. Later, when he got appointed as Police Constable and working in Gadag, he asked her to come to Dharwad to discuss marriage. 4. And when she came on 03.10.2024, at 2:30 p.m., he took her to Ayodya lodge and even when she refused, he told her that they would get married and forcibly tore her clothes and raped her, ignoring even her screams. He also warned her from seeking help by threatening to post her photos on social media. He slapped and kicked on her stomach and tried to strangulate her. Thereafter, he left her in Bus Stand and ran away. Out of fear of reputation of their family, she did not disclose about incident to anyone, even when seeing her crying every night, her mother, enquired, she held back. Thereafter on 06.10.2024, petitioner threatened to send - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2341 CRL.P No. 100428 of 2025 her photos to everyone after knowing about marriage alliance with someone else, and forced to refuse said alliance. 5. She disclosed only when her family members insisted on knowing reason for refusal. When confronted, petitioner’s parents not only refused marriage, they insulted her parents. Even petitioner threatened stating that he was police constable and had complainant’s photos and would make them act as per his wish. Though, elders assured to sort out matter, several such attempts failed with petitioner’s parents abusing complainant’s mother and brother and offering to pay money to drop matter. Alleging that petitioner had cheated her after being in love with her, by threatening and raping her against her wish and also threatening to take her life, while petitioner’s father had insulted her mother in public by using filthy language, she sought action. Said complaint was initially registered as Crime no.16/2024 by Womens Police Station Gadag. As per orders of Commissioner, Hubballi-Dharwad Police Commiserate, it was transferred to Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station and re-registered as Crime no.265/2024. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2341 CRL.P No. 100428 of 2025 6. At outset, it was submitted, when even as per complainant incident had occurred on 03.10.2024, complaint filed on 04.12.2024 was highly belated. Besides, complainant admitted about knowing petitioner since childhood, being in love with him and also visiting him at his room in Hungund. It was further submitted, incident would have occurred during age of majority and apparently with her consent. Even filing of complaint apparently after refusal of marriage alliance would indicate, only with intention to coerce petitioner he was more severe offence were alleged. 7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on decision of this Court in Sri Akhil Thomas V. State of Karnataka reported in NC:2024:KHC:48393, wherein while quashing proceedings against accused had referred to Apex Court decision in case of Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, reported in 2013 (7) SCC 675, wherein while clarifying distinction between rape and consensual sex, had observed requirement by Court to examine very carefully whether accused actually wanted to marry victim or had malafide motive and made false promise to marry only to satisfy his lust, as latter would amount to cheating or deception. It further - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2341 CRL.P No. 100428 of 2025 observed clarified about distinction mere breach of promise and not fulfilling false promise. If, accused had not made promise with sole intention to seduce victim to indulge in sexual acts, same would not amount to rape. And where victim agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and not solely based on misconception created by accused, act could not be considered as rape. 8. Referring to reason assigned by learned District Judge for rejecting petitioner’s bail application namely that investigation was not yet completed and there would be necessity of petitioner for custodial interrogation, reliance was also placed on Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory, Chandigarh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 274, to contend that Hon'ble Supreme Court had held rejection of bail petition on sole ground that accused would be required for custodial interrogation was flawed. It was further submitted, petitioner was working as constable and in case of arrest would likely to affect his employment. On above grounds sought for allowing petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2341 CRL.P No. 100428 of 2025 9. On other hand, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition. At outset, it was submitted since offences alleged against petitioner were heinous and committed against woman, petition for anticipatory bail especially when investigation was not yet completed, would not be tenable. Further, fact that complaint is filed against police constable further aggravated petitioner’s claim. It was submitted, contents of complaint made out clear case of rape. As complainant had stated that she had denied consent for sexual intercourse, but petitioner threatened her and also assaulted her before forcibly having sexual intercourse. She had stated, even thereafter, petitioner had continued to threaten her with spoiling her reputation. It was submitted, since investigation was in progress, if bail were granted, petitioner was likely to threaten or intimidate complainant and hamper investigation. Since, nature of offence required investigation into affairs of complainant and petitioner, his custodial interrogation was necessary. On above grounds, sought rejection of petition. 10. Heard learned counsel. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2341 CRL.P No. 100428 of 2025 11. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail on conditions?” 12. From above, apprehension of petitioner about imminent arrest for non-bailable offences is substantiated by registration of Crime no.265/2024 (supra), wherein petitioner is sole accused for offences under Sections 64 (1), 69, 115 (2), 352, 351 (3) of BNS. 13. As per complaint, victim and petitioner knew each other since childhood and fallen in love with each other, without any of their family members know about it. And when petitioner was working as Surveyor, she often visited him and likewise when she was working at Bengaluru, he visited her there. And on 03.10.2024, he got her to come to Dharwad on pretext of discussing marriage, took her to Ayodya lodge and ignoring her refusal, had sex with her forcibly. Thereafter on threat of publishing her photos on social media, he got her not to disclose about incident to anyone. And thereafter when her mother and brother met petitioner’s father to request marriage alliance, same was not only turned down, but also insulting victim’s mother and brother in filthy language. Same would - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2341 CRL.P No. 100428 of 2025 prima facie appear to contain all necessary ingredients for offences alleged. 14. Admittedly, matter is still under investigation. While petitioner is a police constable who has been absconding. Offences alleged are against woman. Main grounds urged in support of claim for anticipatory bail are that contents of complaint would intact consensual sex than rape on false promise of marriage by relying on ratio in Deepak Gulati’s case (supra). 15. Indeed, as per ratio in above case, main question would be whether accused actually wanted to marry victim or had malafide motive and made false promise to marry only to satisfy his lust, as latter would amount to cheating or deception. And if accused had not made promise with sole intention to seduce victim to indulge in sexual acts, same would not amount to rape. And where victim agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and not solely based on misconception created by accused, act could not be considered as rape. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2341 CRL.P No. 100428 of 2025 16. On careful examination of complaint averments, it is seen, complainant admitted romantic association with petitioner since considerable period. At same time, she stated her intention for coming to Dharwad was to discuss marriage with petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner took her to Ayodya lodge, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her against her consent and when she was crying after incident, promised marriage. It would thus appear that sexual act by petitioner with victim was not induced on promise of marriage, but, done forcibly ignoring her consent. However, matter being at stage of investigation, it would not neither be possible to come to any definite conclusion about same nor would it be appropriate at stage of considering application for bail. 17. Though, learned counsel relied upon ratio in Ashok Kumar’s case (supra) to contend that merely on ground of need for custodial interrogation, application for bail cannot be rejected, in instant case, as per complaint averments would require investigation private matter between two individuals which are more likely to be known to them. Therefore, contention of prosecution that custodial interrogation of petitioner would be required, cannot outright be rejected. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2341 CRL.P No. 100428 of 2025 18. That apart merely that petitioner is a police constable, a government employee, was likely to suffer loss of employment or reputation by itself would not favour consideration, especially when victim has alleged, about being raped by petitioner risking loss of reputation on her part more than petitioner. 19. In view of above, point for consideration is answered in negative. 20. Hence, following: ORDER Petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13