- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:289 CRL.P No. 103826 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103826 OF 2024 (438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)) BETWEEN: NAGARAJ S/O. MARUTI ILIGER, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. HALEBANKAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581202 … PETITIONER (BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HANGAL POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011. 2. RENUKA W/O. CHANDRAPPA MADIWALAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. H. AREGOPPA, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581104. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2-NOTICE SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. (482 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL, IN CONNECTION WITH HANGAL P.S. NO.159/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-I, HAVERI IN SPL.SC NO.76/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 363, 366, 342, 201, R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 4, 6, 8, 12 AND 17 OF POCSO ACT AND ALSO FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 9 AND 10 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT 2006. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.09 14:19:57 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:289 CRL.P No. 103826 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) ORAL ORDER Accused no.3 has filed this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime no.159/2024 of Hangal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short); Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’ for short) and Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (‘PCM’ for short). 2. Sri VM Banakar, learned counsel for petitioner (accused no.3) submitted Crime no.159/2024 was registered by Hangal Police Station on 20.06.2024, on a complaint given by Smt.Renuka W/o Chandrappa Madiwalar stating that after death of her husband - Chandrappa, she was living with Chetana, her daughter aged 17 years 7 months and Jayant her son by doing agriculture. And that on 19.06.2024, when she left home at 7:00 a.m. and came back from work at 5:00 p.m., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:289 CRL.P No. 103826 of 2024 she did not find her daughter at home. On enquiry, her son informed that Chetana had left home at 12:00 p.m. to get groceries from Society and had not returned. When she did not return, complainant searched nearby with her son. Thereafter, she enquired with relatives, but was unable to trace her daughter. She apprehended that her daughter was either missing or she suspected that Sanjeev S/o Arjunappa Kelur (Accused no.1) may have kidnapped her. 3. It was submitted, initially complaint was registered under Section 363 of IPC against only accused no.1. It was submitted, during course of investigation, Investigating Officer (‘IO' for short), secured victim and recorded her statement, on 17.07.2024. She stated that while she was studying PUC, she was acquainted with accused no.1, who was from her village and they were in love with each other. During March when she was at home and called accused no.1 from her brother’s phone, accused no.1 informed her that he was going to Maharashtra in search of livelihood. On 18.06.2024, she met accused no.1 and they decided to elope and get married. And on 19.06.2024 at 11:00 a.m. she left home met accused no.1 and they went to Hubballi by Bus and then to Yallamma temple at Soundatti, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:289 CRL.P No. 103826 of 2024 where they exchanged garlands and accused no.1 tied dried turmeric on her neck in presence of Vinayak (Accused no.2). Thereafter, they went to some place in Maharashtra. On 20.06.2024, accused no.1 took her to a place where he was working earlier. There they stayed in a room. At night, accused no.1 told her that their marriage would be accepted if they have children. On that pretext he had sexually intercourse with her. Thereafter on 21.06.2024, they returned to Belagavi and spent time at Bus stand and Railway station and on 24.06.2024, accused no.1 asked his brother Manju to come to Shiggaon. Thereafter, they reached Shiggaon at 7:00 p.m. when accused no.1 told victim that he would be going to Kerala for livelihood and asking her to stay with Manju. Thereafter, Manju took her to petitioner’s house at Hale Bankapur (as petitioner was uncle of accused no.1) and left her there. She further stated that IO found her there on 17.07.2024. 4. It was submitted, in her statement recorded under Section 164 before Magistrate, victim merely stated that she was in love with accused no.1 since four years and with intention to marry him, she had gone with him to Hubballi – Dharwad on 19.06.2024 and got married. Thereafter, they went - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:289 CRL.P No. 103826 of 2024 to Maharashtra via Belagavi for two days and returned to Bankapur via Hubballi, to be traced by Police. She also specifically stated that she voluntarily had sexual intercourse and accused no.1 did not subject her to any force/trouble. 5. It was submitted, entire case of prosecution and complaint was mainly against accused no.1. Only reference to petitioner was in victim’s statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC where she merely stated that Manju took her to house of petitioner and left her there. But same is not included in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC. 6. It was submitted that charge-sheet was filed on 03.09.2024 for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376, 201 of IPC; Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act and Sections 9 and 10 of PCM Act. But, only provision that would be relevant against petitioner was Section 342 of IPC stipulating punishment for wrongful confinement. However as per Section 340 of IPC, wrongful confinement would occur only where any person is wrongfully restrained in such manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:289 CRL.P No. 103826 of 2024 7. It was submitted, there were no such assertion, either in complaint or statements recorded. Therefore, petitioner had not committed any offence and was innocent. It was submitted, he was law abiding and had maintained respectful reputation. But as several provisions invoked in charge-sheet were non-bailable, he had apprehension of being arrested, which would destroy his reputation. On above grounds, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail on suitable conditions. 8. Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent no.1 - State opposed petition. It was submitted, victim was 17 years and 7 months of age at time of incident. As per victim, accused no.1 was acquainted with her since several years and would have known that she was a minor. Despite same, accused no.1 took her away from home and had sexual intercourse with her. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Independent Thought v. Union of India, reported in 2017 (10) SCC 800, consent of victim would be irrelevant where she was aged below 18 years. After completion of investigation, prosecution had filed charge-sheet alleging several heinous offences. It was submitted, matter was - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:289 CRL.P No. 103826 of 2024 awaiting commencement of trial. Therefore, this was not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 10. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail with conditions?” 11. Same is answered in affirmative for following reasons. 12. Though, initially Crime no.159/2024 was registered only against accused no.1 for offence under Section 363 of IPC, charge-sheet is filed by arraigning petitioner as accused no.3. Though learned HCGP sought to contend that several offences invoked against accused are heinous and severe, only offence alleged against petitioner was under Section 342 of IPC were apparently based on statement of victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC and which were in any case without allegations to substantiate basic ingredients. And there were absolutely no assertions against petitioner in statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:289 CRL.P No. 103826 of 2024 13. In view of arraignment of petitioner in charge-sheet as accused no.3, petitioner had substantiated apprehension of his arrest, while prima facie consideration of allegations would not substantiate offences against him. Prosecution has not alleged criminal antecedents against petitioner. Petitioner is permanent resident of Hale Bankapur, having immovable property and unlikely to flee justice. Hence, following: ORDER Petition is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner/accused no.3 shall be enlarged on bail, in case of his arrest in Crime no.159/2024 of Hangal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376, 201 of IPC; Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act and Sections 9 and 10 of PCM Act, subject to following conditions: a) Petitioner shall appear before I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, within 15 days from date of this order and execute personal bond for sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of Court. b) He shall appear before Investigating Officer for purpose of investigation as and when required and co-operate with investigation. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:289 CRL.P No. 103826 of 2024 c) He shall not threaten, tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly. d) He shall not leave jurisdiction of above Court without prior permission, until completion of trial. e) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities. f) It is clarified that all observation herein would be prima facie and not binding on trial Court. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE RH/GRD CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19