- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6958 CRL.P No. 100827 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100827 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS) BETWEEN: SHRI. KAREYAPPA S/O VITTAPPA AVOJI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/O. MULLUR VILLAGE, TQ. RAMADURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE POLICE INSECTOR KULAGOD, TALUK. MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591312. RERESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT. DHARWAD BENCH, PIN-580011 2. SHRI VITHAL S/O MAHADEV ITTAPPANAVAR AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O SANNAKKAI TOTA KOUJALAGI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591227 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT/STATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO THAT THE PETITION BE ALLOWED AND THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED MAY BE ENLARGED ON REGULAR BAIL IN KULAGOD P.S. CRIME 56/2024 U/S 363, 376 (2) (n), 376(3) OF IPC AND SECTION 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, PENDING TRIAL IN SPL.CASE NO.476/2024 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6958 CRL.P No. 100827 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.H.M.Darigond, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Respondent No.2-defacto complainant served with the notice of the petition and remained absent. 3. This is a successive bail request of the accused who is facing trial in S.C.No.476/2024 on the file of Special Judge, Belagavi for the charges under Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act coupled with Sections 363, 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The gist of the complaint averments would reveal that the daughter of the second respondent being aged 15 years 2 months was eloped by the accused and thereafter had the forcible sexual intercourse with her. Initially, case was registered for kidnapping of the victim - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6958 CRL.P No. 100827 of 2025 girl and after tracing the victim and the accused, police recorded statement of the victim girl and invoked provisions of Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and also the provisions of Section 376 of IPC in the incident. 5. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. Interalia, arresting the petitioner, charge sheet material would depict that the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein, victim girl has specifically deposed about the forcible sexual intercourse committed by the accused with the victim girl. 6. After the trial has commenced, before the Court also the victim girl in her examination-in-chief has supported the case of the prosecution in toto. 7. The bail request of the accused is turned down by the learned special judge. Thereafter, accused is before this in the revision petition. 8. Sri.H.M.Darigond, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the bail grounds contended that it - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6958 CRL.P No. 100827 of 2025 was a consensual act and at the instigation of the parents, the victim girl has deposed falsely before the Court which would be elicited in the cross examination of the victim girl and the case is set of for cross examination of victim girl tomorrow and therefore, the continuation of the accused in judicial custody is no longer warranted and sought for allowing the bail request. 9. Per contra, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP opposes the bail ground by contending that in a matter of this nature, theory of consensual sex would not arise at all having regard to the fact that the victim was aged 15 years 2 months at the time of incident and sought for dismissal of petition. 10. Having heard the arguments on both 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 main ingredients required to attract the offence under Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act is found out from the material on record not only in the form - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6958 CRL.P No. 100827 of 2025 of statement of victim girl before the investigation officer but also before the jurisdictional Magistrate when her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Moreover, she has now reiterated her stand when she was examined in chief before the Special Court. 12. Further, medical records and other supporting materials would also prima facie indicate the action attributable to the accused to attract the offence under Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. 13. As rightly contended on behalf of the prosecution, the theory of consent would loose it’s significance having regard to the fact that the victim is aged 15 years 2 months as on the date of incident. 14. View of this Court is fortified by the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Independent Thought Vs. Union of India1. 1 AIR 2018 SC(Criminal) 229 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6958 CRL.P No. 100827 of 2025 15. Therefore, the arguments which is now put forward on behalf of the accused that in the cross examination, contra answers would be elicited and therefore, the petitioner is to be enlarged on bail cannot be considered at least at this stage. 16. If at all, if the petitioner is successful in establishing his case before the trial Court in the cross examination of the victim girl, that there was no forcible sexual intercourse, it is always open for the petitioner to renew his request of grant of bail by filing successive bail application. 17. Reserving such liberty, the following order is passed: ORDER Bail petition rejected. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7