- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6553 CRL.P No. 101285 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.101285 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: BASAVRAJ S/O. BHOJAPPA BOMMANAL, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ADAVIBHAVI VILLAGE, TQ. KANAKAGIRI, DIST. KOPPAL-513236. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. XXXX, COMPLAINT/VICTIM, R/O. ADAVIBHAVI, TQ. KANAKAGIRI, DIST. KOPPAL-583236. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KANAKAGIRI P.S., R/BY. THE S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580008. …RESPONDENTS (R1-NOTICE SERVED SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS 2023, SEEKING TO ENLARGED THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CC NO.284/2025 ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GANGAVATI REGISTERED BY KANAKAGIRI P.S. IN CRIME NO. 129/2024, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 75, 64(2)(m), 351, 49, 329(3), 329(4), 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SAMHITA 2023. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6553 CRL.P No. 101285 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.PraveenKumar, counsel on behalf of Sri.Anand R. Kolli for revision petitioner and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent No.2-State. 2. Accused has been charge sheeted for the offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS),2023, 75, 64(2)(m),351(3), 49, 329(3), 329(4), 3(5) in Crime No.129/2024, pursuant to the complaint lodged by victim lady. 3. Gist of the charge sheet material would reveal that accused forcibly had the physical relationship with the victim lady and photographed the same on his mobile telephone and blackmailing the victim lady to have company with him time and again. 4. When there was a marriage proposal for the victim lady, accused said to have approached the would-be - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6553 CRL.P No. 101285 of 2025 husband of victim lady and allegedly shown him the intimate moments spent by the accused with the victim lady whereby the said marriage proposal got frustrated. 5. After thorough investigation on the complaint lodged by the victim lady charge sheet is filed. Bail request of the petitioner is turned down by the learned Session Judge and thereafter, petitioner is before this Court. 6. Sri.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the victim lady- complainant is a consenting party; there is no forcible relationship between the accused and the victim lady. 7. It is his further contention that the victim lady tried to break up the relationship, accused questioned her and at that juncture a false complaint came to be lodged by the victim lady and as such sought for grant of bail. 8. Per contra, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader contend that material on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6553 CRL.P No. 101285 of 2025 record, especially the statements given by the prosecution witnesses including the victim lady would make it clear that victim lady is not a consenting party. 9. The statements given by the victim lady is to be tested before the Court after her examination as a witness before the Court. However, prima facie material includes the statements of victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC would be sufficient enough in opposing the bail petition and sought for dismissal of the bail petition. 10. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the statement of the victim lady prima facie is sufficient enough to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused. 12. As is rightly contended on behalf of the prosecution, the statement given by the victim girl is to be - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6553 CRL.P No. 101285 of 2025 tested before the Court of law by examination of the victim girl and cross examination thereof. 13. Only on the ground that victim lady is a major would not be sufficient enough to entertain the request for grant of bail, at least at this stage by accepting the argument that victim lady was accompanying party to the physical relationship with the petitioner. 14. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that at the time of considering the bail request, Courts are precluded from holding a mini trial to assess the merits or demerits of the case. 15. As such, suffice to say that prime facie materials available on record would definitely disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an order of grant of bail by resorting to the special powers vested in this Court under Section 439 of Cr.PC., at least at this stage. 16. It is always open for the petitioner to approach the Court with a successive bill request, if there is a - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6553 CRL.P No. 101285 of 2025 positive changed circumference in the case especially after the examination of the victim lady. 17. Reserving such liberty to the revision petitioner, following order is passed: ORDER Bail petition is rejected. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB, CT:PA, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9