- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6892 CRL.P No. 100526 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100526 OF 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. MEHABOOB, S/O HUCHCHESAB HUSENSAB NADAF, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC. AUTO DRIVER, R/O: PINJAR ONI, SHIRUND, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582207. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH MULAGUND P.S., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580005, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSEUTOR. 2. SMT.HANAMAWWA, W/O KARIYAPPA MALLASAMUDRA, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O . SHIRUNDA VADDARAGERI, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582207. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. IN CRIME NO.33/2024 REGISTERED BY THE MULAGUND POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(2) (I) (N) AND 506 OF IPC AND 6 AND 8 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 AND SECTION 3 (2) (VA) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6892 CRL.P No. 100526 of 2025 ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG IN SPECIAL CASE NO.233/2024. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.S.M.Kalwad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri.Prashant S.Kadadevar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) with following prayer: “To enlarge the Accused/Petitioner On regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.33/2024 registered by the Mulagund Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (i) (N) and 506 of IPC and 6 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, pending on the file of Addl. District and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6892 CRL.P No. 100526 of 2025 Sessions Judge Gadag in Special Case no.233/2024.” 3. Facts in a nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the petition are as under: A complaint came to be lodged by grandmother of the victim girl with Mulagund Police Station, Gadag Rural Circle alleging the commission of the offences under Sections 376(2)(i)(n), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. 4. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that victim girl being the minor aged about 17 years 10 months belonging to Bhovi community has been lured by the present petitioner on the promise to marry her and had forcible physical relationship with her and she became pregnant. In that regard, the accused had been arrested and he has been sent to judicial custody. After obtaining - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6892 CRL.P No. 100526 of 2025 the bail, he got released from the jail on 13.12.2023 and on 15.12.2023 at about 9:30 p.m., he again contacted the victim girl and used to have forcible physical relationship once in 2-3 days. Based on the said subsequent complaint, police registered a fresh case and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. 5. Accused is facing the trial in the said case. The request made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail is turned down by the learned Special Judge. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court. 6. Sri S.M.Kalwad, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that when the present petitioner was in jail, victim girl had an affair with another accused person and therefore, question of present petitioner having physical relationship with the victim girl would not arise and therefore, petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. 7. He would also invite the attention of the Court about the further statement wherein the victim girl has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6892 CRL.P No. 100526 of 2025 specifically stated that when she has arranged for the bail for the present petitioner, she had come into contact with accused No.2. Therefore, version of the victim girl cannot be accepted and sought for grant of bail. 8. Per contra, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri Prashant S.Kadadevar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposed the bail grounds with vehemence. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, medical records and the statements of the victim girl would prima facie depict the physical relationship between the present petitioner and the victim girl. 11. Whether at all victim girl became pregnant on account of physical relationship that she had with the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6892 CRL.P No. 100526 of 2025 second accused when the present petitioner was in jail or not cannot be decided by this Court at this stage. 12. Likewise theory of the consent that is propounded with vehemence by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot also be countenanced in law for the simple reason that the victim girl was a minor as on the date of alleged incident. 13. View of this Court in this regard is fortified by the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Independent Thought vs. Union of India and another reported in (2017) 10 SCC 800. 14. Suffice to say that prima facie material available on record especially in view of the reverse burden being cast on accused under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act, bail request of the petitioner cannot be granted at this state. 15. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that at the time of considering bail application, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6892 CRL.P No. 100526 of 2025 Courts are not entitled to assess the merits or demerits of the case of the prosecution in detail. 16. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the material on record would definitely disentitle the present petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail by resorting special powers vested in this Court under Section 483 of BNS for the time being. 17. It is always open for the petitioner to approach the Court with a fresh bail request, if there is a positive change in the facts and circumstance of the case. 18. Reserving such liberty for the petitioner, following order is passed. ORDER Criminal petition is rejected. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5