- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3896 CRL.P No. 100785 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100785 OF 2025 [439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: MR.RAMESH S/O. HANUMANTHA, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR, R/O. RAJIVAGANDHI NAGAR, KARATAGI-583231, NOW AT: INDRA NGARA KARATAGI, TQ. KARATAGI, DIST. KOPPAL. … PETITIONER (BY SRI NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KARATAGI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001. 2. SRI SAVITRI W/O. CHARAN, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. J.P. NAGAR, KARATAGI-583231, TQ. KARATAGI, DIST. KOPPAL. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI MAQBOOLAHAMED M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS) SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.232/2024 KARATAGI P.S. PENDING AT ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL (SITTING AT GANGAVATHI) IN SPL.SC.POCSO NO.33/2024, REGISTERED WITH KARATAGI POLICE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 137(2), 65(1), 351(2) OF BNS AND SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-2012. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.28 16:30:09 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3896 CRL.P No. 100785 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 (‘BNSS’ for short) (Section 439 of CrPC) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.232/2024 by Karatagi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 137 (2), 65 (1) and 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’ for short) and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’ for short), by sole accused (petitioner). 2. Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for petitioner submitted prosecution case was that Smt.Savitri (complainant) filed complaint on 10.09.2024 stating she was married to Charan had daughter (victim) and son. Since her husband left them 10 years ago, they were residing in rented house at JP Nagar, Karatagi. Victim was studying in 9th standard in Karnataka Public School. Some villagers had informed her about petitioner following victim on her way to and from school trying to talk to her. But victim did not say - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3896 CRL.P No. 100785 of 2025 anything, she kept quite. And 2 – 3 days earlier, victim was sick and took treatment at hospital. Thereafter, as usual, victim went to school on 09.09.2024. At 1:00 p.m. on same day, complainant went to school to verify her daughter’s wellbeing, but was informed that she had not come to school. When she did not get proper information from her friends, she informed her brother-in-law, Shivakumar, who joined her in searching nearby. When they returned home, victim came back at 4:00 p.m. with sad face and was not speaking with anyone. Victim, later informed her that one year ago, when victim accompanied complainant for catering work, she came in contact with petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner began following her. Petitioner told her that he was in love with her and willing to marry her and take care of her as queen. Though she replied that she was still a minor and if said information reached home, they would not let her go to school. But, petitioner continued wooing her. And at 7:00 a.m. on 15.08.2024, when she was returning home after Independence Day celebration, petitioner held her hand stating he wanted to talk with her and took her to his house as nobody was there. At home, on promise of marrying her and ignoring her protest, petitioner forcibly took her at 9:00 a.m. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3896 CRL.P No. 100785 of 2025 He also threatened her, in case she informed about incident at home, he would harm her reputation. When she kept quite, he took advantage of same and took her home often and slept with her forcibly. She was waiting to inform same at home. But, on 09.09.2024, when she was heading home at 1:30 p.m. for lunch, petitioner took her to his house once again and slept with her against her wish. Victim told her while crying that only reason for her not informing about incident was her fear that after she informed, she would not be allowed to go to school. Hence, alleging that knowing that victim was minor, petitioner had sexual intercourse with victim against her will repeatedly and committed offences, complaint was filed. Hence, Crime no.232/2024 (supra) was registered. 3. At outset, it was submitted, in entire complaint, except mere assertion that petitioner had made her to sleep with him, there was no specific mention of ‘sexual intercourse’. Though incident occurred on several occasions, only two dates i.e. 15.08.2024 and 09.09.2024 were mentioned. Moreover, complaint filed on 10.09.2024 was filed after twenty days, giving rise to possibility of false implication and afterthought. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3896 CRL.P No. 100785 of 2025 4. Further, admission that victim knew petitioner since one year, had contacted petitioner on several occasions would indicate that it was with her consent and not against her will. Further, in Medical Examination Report, Medical Officer did not note any injuries and hymen was noted to be lax and not ruptured, indicating petitioner did not have sexual intercourse with her and was wrongly implicated. It was submitted, for first time while recording statement under Section 183 (5) of BNSS, victim mentioned about sexual intercourse, indicating improvisation and contradiction with statement made under Section 180 of BNSS. 5. It was further submitted, petitioner was arrested on 10.09.2024 and while he was in custody, investigation was completed and charge-sheet filed on 23.10.2024. Since prosecution relied on 27 witnesses, conclusion of trial was likely to be delayed. Besides, petitioner was 21 year old labourer, without any criminal antecedents and permanent resident of Indranagar, Karatagi. On above grounds sought for allowing petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3896 CRL.P No. 100785 of 2025 6. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent no.1 – State submitted, there were specific allegations against petitioner and victim had supported prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 180 as well as 183 of BNSS and specifically alleged that petitioner forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. As per school certificate, date of birth of victim was 21.06.2009. Therefore, as on date of incident she was 15 years 1 month and 25 days. And as offence under Section 65 of BNS was punishable with rigorous imprisonment from 20 years upto life, nature of offences were heinous. Further, as petitioner and victim were both residents of same village, there was likelihood of petitioner influencing prosecutrix and other witnesses. On above grounds, sought rejection of petition. 7. Sri Maqboolahamed M. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2 also opposed petition. In addition to submissions of HCGP, he submitted, in her statement given under Section 183 of BNSS, victim had specifically stated about petitioner having forcible sexual intercourse with her, which would clearly implicate petitioner for offences alleged. Further, both petitioner and victim were residing at same place, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3896 CRL.P No. 100785 of 2025 possibility of petitioner intimidating or influencing victim were apparent. On said grounds sought for dismissal. 8. Heard learned counsel. 9. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail on conditions?” 10. This petition for regular bail is by sole accused in Crime no.232/2024 by Karatagi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 137 (2), 65 (1) and 355 (2) of BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO. 11. While, offence of kidnapping under Section 137 (2) of BNS is punishable with imprisonment upto 7 years; rape on woman below 16 years of age under Section 65 (1) of BNS with imprisonment from 20 years upto end of natural life; criminal intimidation under Section 351 (2) of BNS with imprisonment upto 2 years; penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 of POCSO with imprisonment from 7 years upto life; aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of POCSO with imprisonment from 10 years upto life. Thus, nature of offences are heinous and grave respectively. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3896 CRL.P No. 100785 of 2025 12. Though petitioner is alleged to have committed offences on several occasions, complaint is filed more than 20 days after first incident. Victim admits knowing petitioner since one year. Prima facie consideration of failure by victim to inform anyone immediately after incident, duration during which it is alleged to have continued, entries in Medical Examination Report and non-recording of any other injuries would caste allegations into some doubt. Further, even statement of victim recorded under Section 183 (5) of BNSS on which prosecution is strongly relying, is recorded about 10 days after filing complaint. Moreover, investigation is already completed and charge-sheet filed, wherein prosecution seeks to examine 27 witnesses to substantiate offences, which is likely to delay conclusion of trial. Hence, for above reasons as well as taking note of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deshraj @ Musa v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2709, point for consideration is answered in affirmative but subject to conditions and by clarifying that conclusions arrived at are prima facie and only for purposes of this order and would not bind trial Court. Hence, following: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3896 CRL.P No. 100785 of 2025 ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused is released on bail in Crime no.232/2024 of Karatagi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 137 (2), 65 (1) and 355 (2) of BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO, subject to following conditions: a) Petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of Court. b) He shall not attempt to contact, threaten or tamper with victim or any other prosecution witnesses either through any device or in- person. c) Except for purposes of condition (a) above, he shall stay away from Karatagi town. d) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities. e) He shall regularly attend Court proceedings. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE CLK CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15