- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6552 CRL.P No. 100510 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100510 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. ASHOK S/O. SAYABANNA RATNAKAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SANKESHWAR, TAL. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591313. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION, NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011. 2. KUMARI NANDINI D/O. BHIMRAO MANKALE, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. SOLAPUR, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. SITALAXMI SUNKAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (SECTION 483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 CRIME NO.153/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 64(1), 64(2)(M), 70(1), 137(2) AND 351(3) R/W. 3(5) OF BNS, BY THE RESPONDENT SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.24 14:36:18 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6552 CRL.P No. 100510 of 2025 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.Srinand A.Pachhapure, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Smt.Sitalaxmi Sunkad, learned counsel for respondent No.2 through legal aid. 2. Petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) with following prayer: “To grant bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.1 Crime No.153/2024 registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m), 70(1), 137(2) and 351(3) read with 3(5) of BNS, by the Respondent Sankeshwar Police Station, pending on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi.” 3. Facts in a nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the petition are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6552 CRL.P No. 100510 of 2025 A complaint came to be lodged by Kumari Nandini Bhimrao Mankale with Sankeshwar Police on 24.10.2024 which was registered in Crime No.153/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(n), 109, 504, 34, 363 of IPC. 4. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that accused No.1 lured complainant that he would teach the skill to obtain a job and gave shelter in the Online Centre run by the 1st accused and also gave shelter in his house. 5. Believing the version of the accused No.1, complainant took shelter with him. When the matter stood thus, on 29.06.2024 at about 12.00 in the midnight, when the complainant was sleeping in the bedroom, accused No.1 committed forcible sexual intercourse with the complainant 4 to 5 times. When the same was intimated to the wife of the 1st accused, she has abused the complainant herself and further instigated the accused - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6552 CRL.P No. 100510 of 2025 No.1 in committing sexual assault on the complainant. Thereafterwards, the complainant was taken to Solapur and after few days, she was brought back to Sankeshwar and accused No.1 demanded that complainant should marry him. 6. After receipt of complainant, police after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet. The charge sheet materials depict the photographs showed by the accused No.1 on his mobile telephone wherein the nude pictures and video clippings were found. The prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail was turned down whereas accused No.2 has been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court by order dated 08.01.2025 in Criminal Petition No.103692/2024. 7. Accused No.1 with the present petition sought for grant of bail on the ground that there is a changed circumstance inasmuch as the charge sheet is now filed and continuation of the accused in judicial custody is no - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6552 CRL.P No. 100510 of 2025 longer warranted more so having regard to the fact that the petitioner is aged 48 years. 8. Sri Srinand A.Pachhapure, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are far from truth and on account of some differences between the parents of the complainant and the present petitioner, a false case has been foisted and sought for grant of bail. 9. Per contra, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Smt.Sitalaxmi Sunkad, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the bail grounds with vehemence. 10. They would together contend that the material on record in the form of charge sheet materials would depict the prima facie factual aspects which would fortify the complaint allegations and thus sought for dismissal of the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6552 CRL.P No. 100510 of 2025 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, prima facie materials are collected by the investigation agency including the medical reports of the present petitioner as well as the victim. 13. Petitioner is none other than the grandfather of the victim girl. The material on record would go to show the intimate scenes between the victim girl and the complainant which were stored in the mobile telephone of the petitioner. Voluntary statement given by the accused No.1 pursuant to which the mobile telephone came to be seized by the police and thereafter the contents of the mobile telephone were recovered. 14. Whether at all the victim girl was a consenting party to the alleged physical relationship or not cannot be decided by this Court and it should also not hold any water inasmuch as admittedly victim girl is a minor. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6552 CRL.P No. 100510 of 2025 15. Following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Independent Thought vs. Union of India and another reported in (2017) 10 SCC 800 and reported in In Re : Right to Privacy of Adolescents reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2055, this Court that too at the stage of considering the bail request of the petitioner cannot venture into holding a mini trial. 16. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that at the time of deciding bail application, Courts are not entitled to assess the merits or demerits of the case of the prosecution in detail. 17. Suffice to say that prima facie materials available on record especially seizure of the iphone belonging to the accused person to the voluntary statement and the contents there being retrieved being the part of the charge sheet materials, is sufficient enough to deny the request of the petitioner at least for the time being. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6552 CRL.P No. 100510 of 2025 18. 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 especially after examination of the victim girl. 19. 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