- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6624 CRL.P No. 101247 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101247 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: VINAYAK S/O. JUNJAPPA GANGEMMANAVAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/AT: KARAJAGI VILLAGE, NEAR WALMIKI TEMPLE, TQ. HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI-581110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN C. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY HIGH COURT GOVT. PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, (HAVERI WOMEN POLICE STATION) 2. REVANSHIDDAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA SOPPIN, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/O. KARAJAGI VILLAGE, KALLIMATH ONI, TAL. HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2-NOTICE SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/A1 ON BAIL BY IMPOSING ANY OF THE CONDITIONS DEEMED FIT BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN CONNECTION TO SPL. SC NO.63/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(n) OF IPC AND 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT AND 9 OF PROHIBITION CHILD MARRIAGE ACT 2006 ON V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.24 14:36:27 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6624 CRL.P No. 101247 of 2025 THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 HAVERI, IN CRIME NO. 43/2024 HAVERI WOMEN P.S. BY SETTING ASIDE ORDER DATED 13.09.2024. 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 Sachin C. Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. 2. Petition is under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter for short ‘BNSS’), with the following prayer: Enlarge the petitioner/A1 on bail by imposing any of the conditions deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in connection to Spl. SC No. 63/2024 for the offence under sections 376(2)(n) of ipc and 4 and 6 of pocso act and 9 of prohibition child marriage act 2006 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC- 1 Haveri, in Crime No. 43/2024 Haveri Women P.S. by setting aside order dated 13.09.2024, in the interest of justice. 3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the petition are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6624 CRL.P No. 101247 of 2025 A complaint came to be alleged by the 2nd respondent with the Haveri Women Police station on 17.06.2024, alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC on 16.06.2024. 4. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that the complainant’s daughter, who was 17 years, 11 months 29 days had left the house stating that she would be visiting her friend’s place and did not return, even after 9.15 p.m. Therefore, the complainant and his family members kept a search for the victim girl. Therefore, a complaint was lodged alleging that somebody must have abducted her or she was missing. 5. The police registered the case in Crime No.43/2024 and investigated with the matter. During the course of investigation, the petitioner and the complainant’s daughter were traced by the investigating agency. After recording statement of victim girl, the investigating agency invoked the offences under Section 366,376,376(2)(n),342 and 109 read with Section 34 of IPC. The police also invoked the provision of Sections 4, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6624 CRL.P No. 101247 of 2025 6, 12, 17 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’, for short) in the chargesheet. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Special Court for grant of bail, which was negated by the learned Special Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner is now before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sachin Kulkarni, reiterating the grounds mentioned in the petition, contended that the victim girl was a major at the time of the incident and therefore, per se the provisions of the POSCO Act would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and sought for grant of bail. 8. Per contra, Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader would dispute the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by contending that the age of the victim is to be decided at trial by placing necessary evidence on record and it is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6624 CRL.P No. 101247 of 2025 too premature for the petitioner to contend that the physical relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl was consensual in nature. As such, she prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, the statement of the victim girl recorded by the investigating agency prima facie would go to show that she was on the verge of attaining majority as on the date of the incident. It is for the prosecution to establish the age of the victim girl by placing the necessary material evidence on record along with the chargesheet materials. 11. The age of the victim girl prima facie appears to be less than the age of 18 years. Therefore, the theory of consensual sex cannot be appreciated in view of the principles of law annunciated by Hon’ble Apex - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6624 CRL.P No. 101247 of 2025 Court in the case of Independent Thought vs. Union of India and another1. 12. Suffice it to say that the material on record at this stage would definitely disentitle the petitioner from obtaining the grant of regular bail. 13. After the examination of the victim girl, it will always open for the petitioner to approach the Court with a successive bail request after the examination of the victim girl. 14. Reserving the such liberty, the following order is passed: ORDER The bail petition is hereby rejected. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/- CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 1 AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 4904