- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13988 CRL.P No. 103889 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103889 OF 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI DRUPSINGH S/O. INDRAJITSINGH THAKHUR, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION. COOLIE, R/O. JANNATH NAGAR, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI T.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY LAXMESHWAR P.S., STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD, PIN-580011. 2. SMT. SUNEERA W/O. SADIK, AGE. 30 YEARS, R/O. HOLENUR, TQ/DIST. SHIVAMOGGA-577402. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRAVEEN Y.DEVAREDDI, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023) PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.46/2024 ARISING OUT OF LAXMESHWAR P.S. CRIME Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13988 CRL.P No. 103889 of 2025 NO.80/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(3), 506 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, AND SECTION 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT-2012, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE GADAG, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) The petitioner, who is accused in S.C.No.46/2024, pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, is before this Court seeking for regular bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.05.2024 one Smt.Sunnira W/o.Sadik filed a complaint before Laxmeshwar Police stating that the victim is her sister. The age of the victim was 15 years 10 months and she was studying at Kasarkod District in Kerala State and on 21.05.2024 the victim was travelling by bus from Udupi to Laxmeshwar. When the victim was on the way to Asara Darga at Hubballi, the petitioner approached and convinced the victim and made her to go with him on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-26/EF-6033 by offering lift to go to Darga. Instead of taking the victim towards the Darga, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13988 CRL.P No. 103889 of 2025 petitioner took the victim to Balehallimath Kalyana Mantapa and made a plea around about 08.30 p.m. and the petitioner committed sexual assault on the victim. Therefore, she informed the said aspect to the complainant. Upon complaint, the police have registered a case in Crime No.80/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 of POCSO Act and after conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 3. Heard Sri T.R.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devaraddiyavar, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 State. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.20. There is no evidence to indicate that the victim had been subjected to sexual assault. Though, the victim supported - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13988 CRL.P No. 103889 of 2025 the case of the prosecution, there are inconsistencies in the evidence of the victim regarding the incident. Having considered the inconsistencies, it is appropriate to grant bail by imposing suitable conditions. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently submitted that the age of the victim was 15 years 06 months as on the date of the incident. The petitioner on the pretext of giving a lift to her, took her on his motorcycle and went to the nearby place and committed sexual assault. The manner in which he has committed sexual assault on the victim is unnatural and unpardonable. 6. It is further submitted that immediately after the incident the victim narrated the facts to her sister, who is the complainant in this case and she lodges a complaint immediately after the incident. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the evidence of the victim, who has been examined as P.W.1. She supported the case of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13988 CRL.P No. 103889 of 2025 prosecution. In spite of cross-examination has been made, she withstood the cross examination and supported the case. 8. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to grant bail as prayed for. Hence, the petition is deserves to be rejected. 9. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE MRK CT: UMD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7