- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32514 CRL.P No. 3007 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3007 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. MS. ROOPA D/O NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT KRISHNAPURA VILLAGE, KOTHA KOTE POST, GULUR HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PINCODE -561207 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESWARA.P.N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OF POLICE, BAGEPALLI POLICE STATION, BAGEPALLI. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING - 560001 2. SRI. NANDEESH S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT KRISHNAPURA VILLAGE, KOTHA KOTE POST GULURU HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PINCODE-561207 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE) CRL.P FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(2) BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO I. SET ASIDE THE BAIL Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32514 CRL.P No. 3007 of 2026 ORDER DATED 19.01.2026 PASSED IN CRL. MIS. NO. 758/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AD SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKABALLAPUR (ANNEXURE-G) II. CONSEQUENTLY, REJECT THE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 758/2025 ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA AND REMAND THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO JUDICIAL CUSTODY, COPY SERVED ON SPP.OFFICE OBJECTIONS1. RANK OF THE PARTY TO BE STATED CORRECTLY. 2. PRAYER TO BE MADE SPECIFIC REGARDING CANCELLATION OF BAIL. 3. CERTIFIED COPY OF BAIL/ FIR AND COMPLAINT TO BE FURNISHED.OFFICE NOTE: 1. THE ACCUSED NANDEESHA HAD ALREADY APPROACHED THIS HONBLE HIGH COURT IN CRL.P.NO.16949/2025 U/S 438 AND WHICH IS ADJOURNED ON 17.12.2025. POST CRL.P BEFORE REGISTRAR FOR ORDERS ON OFFICE OBJECTION A/W AFFICE NOTE.(VIDE R(J) CIRCULAR NO.138/25 DATED 29.01.2026)RR230226CRL.P FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(2) BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO I. SET ASIDE THE BAIL ORDER DATED 19.01.2026 PASSED IN CRL. MIS. NO. 758/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AD SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKABALLAPUR (ANNEXURE-G) II. CONSEQUENTLY, REJECT THE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 758/2025 ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA AND REMAND THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO JUDICIAL CUSTODY, SUBMITTED:VIDE R(C AND CM) AND (S AND R) ORDER DATED 26.02.2026 ALL OFFICE OBJECTIONS ARE COMPLIED WITH.POST CRL.P BEFORE COURT FOR ORDERS A/W OFFICE NOTE.RS. 08.04.2026. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS, is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 19.01.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.No.758 of 2025 by the Court of I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura and cancel the bail granted to respondent no.2 in Crime No.372 of 2025 registered by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32514 CRL.P No. 3007 of 2026 Bagepalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 89 and 318(4) of BNS, 2023. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.372 of 2025 was registered by Bagepalli Police Station for the aforesaid offences against the second respondent herein, based on the first information dated 08.11.2025 received from the petitioner herein, who is the alleged victim in the present case. Apprehending arrest in the said case, respondent no.2 had filed Crl.Misc.No.683 of 2025 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 28.11.2025. subsequently, respondent no.2 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, respondent no.2 had filed Crl.Msc.758 of 2025, before the jurisdictional Sessions Court which was allowed on 19.01.2026.. Assailing the same, the victim is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Sessions Judge, who had earlier rejected the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner has thereafter enlarged him on regular bail without assigning any cogent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32514 CRL.P No. 3007 of 2026 reasons. He submits that allegations found in the first information would attract the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023 and therefore, learned Sessions Judge was not justified in enlarging second respondent on regular bail. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE of UTTAR PRADESH V. NAUSHAD - (2013) 16 SCC 651 and ANURAG SONI V. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - (2019) 13 SCC 1. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has argued in support of the impugned order and submits that respondent no.2 has been falsely implicated in the present case after the relationship of the parties had failed. He submits that petitioner and the victim were in a consensual relationship and considering the same, the learned Sessions Judge has granted regular bail to him. The petitioner has not violated any bail conditions and he has no other criminal antecedents. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32514 CRL.P No. 3007 of 2026 6. First information was submitted by the victim girl, aged 25 years on 08.11.2025, alleging that she and the petitioner were acquainted to each other for the last 10 years and for the last 5 years they were loving each other. This was known to the family members of both the parties. On the assurance of marrying the victim, second respondent allegedly had sexual intercourse with her for the last 3 years on multiple occasions and as a result she had conceived. Subsequently, the said pregnancy was terminated, after the second respondent had given her some tablets. She has stated that even thereafter she and the second respondent had sexual intercourse and when she requested him to marry her, he allegedly informed her that his parents are not agreeable for the same. Subsequently, on 01.11.2025 respondent no.2 called her father and informed him that if his parents are agreeable, he would be marrying the victim. But thereafter he had refused to marry her and he also was avoiding her. 7. From the averments found in the first information, it is apparent that the victim and the second respondent who hail from the same village were acquainted to each other for a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32514 CRL.P No. 3007 of 2026 period of 10 years and they were loving each other for a period of 5 years. Thereafter, they had consensual sex for a period of 3 years on multiple occasions and as a result victim had conceived. Her pregnancy was terminated after she had consumed a tablet which was given to her by the second respondent. Even thereafter, the victim and the respondent no.2 had sexual intercourse and it is only after their relationship failed, the victim had approached the police on 08.11.2025 and submitted first information. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the learned Session Judge, vide the order dated 19.01.2026 has granted regular bail to respondent no. 2 by a reasoned order. The parameters for considering the prayer for anticipatory bail and regular bail are totally different and the learned Sessions Judge having appreciated the said aspect of the matter had rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. However, after the second respondent was arrested, he had co-operated with the police for the purpose of investigation and taking into consideration that second respondent's custody was not required for the purpose of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32514 CRL.P No. 3007 of 2026 interrogation, the trial Court had granted him regular bail by a well-reasoned order. 9. The judgments in the case of NAUSHAD (supra) and ANURAG SONI (supra) on which the reliance has been placed by the Petitioner's counsel cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, since the said judgments are rendered in an appeal, after trial. It is not in dispute that petitioner, who has no other criminal antecedent has complied with all the bail conditions imposed on him by the learned Sessions Judge vide the order impugned. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good grounds to entertain this petition. 10. Accordingly, criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52