- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1113 CRL.P No. 105292 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 105292 OF 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SATISH S/O YERRISWAMY AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. TECHNICIAN, R/O. HOSADAROJI VILLAGE, TQ. SANDUR, BALLARI 583103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KUDUTHINI POLICE, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATATAKA DHARWAD BENCH 580011. 2. JIVARATNAM AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSA DAROJI VILLAGE, BANDIHARLAPUR POST, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, 583231 (FATHER OF VICTIM) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. NIRMALA DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND GRANT BAIL, ORDERING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN KUDUTHINI P.S CRIME NO. 126/2025 REGISTERED ON 10.09.2025, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC.4, 5 (L) AND 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC. 376 (2) (n), 506, 376 (3), 313, 366 (A) OF IPC PENDING O THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, F.T.S.C.-I AT BALLARI IN SPL. C. NO. 1353/2025, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1113 CRL.P No. 105292 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Girish Bhat, for petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.P.N.Hatti, for respondent No.1 and Smt.Nirmala Doddamani for Sri.M.B.Kanavi, for respondent No.2. 2. The accused in Special Case No.1353/2025 is the petitioner in this petition seeking the following relief: “Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that, This Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the petition and grant of bail, ordering to release the petitioner/accused on bail in Kuduthini P.S Crime No.126/2025 registered on 10.09.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections.4, 5 (l) and 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 376(3), 313, 366(a) of IPC pending o the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-I, at Ballari in Spl.C.No.1353/2025, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1113 CRL.P No. 105292 of 2025 Based on the complaint lodged by the father of the victim girl with Kuduthini Police Station, Ballari District, a case came to be registered for the offences under Sections 4,6 and 5(l) of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506, 313, 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. Police after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet against the petitioner in respect of aforesaid offences. The column No.17 of the charge sheet would reveal that the victim girl was enticed with a promise of marriage and there was a forcible sexual intercourse by the petitioner in the precincts of the prayer hall of the church. She became pregnant with continuous physical relationship and there was an abortion. Thereafter, the victim girl was taken to Bengaluru in the guise of counseling and thereafter taken to Mysuru, where in a hotel lodge she was again subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. 5. Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain the bail was turned down by the learned Special Judge and thereafter petitioner is before this Court. 6. Sri.Girish Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contented that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1113 CRL.P No. 105292 of 2025 there is a delay of more than one and a half years in lodging the complaint, which exposes the hollowness in the complaint averments and sought for grant of bail. 7. He would further contend that, as per the complaint averments itself, there was a promise for marriage between the petitioner and the victim girl and when it did not materialize, a belated complaint came to be lodged as an afterthought only to coerce the petitioner to marry the victim girl and therefore sought for grant of bail. 8. Per contra, Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt.Nirmala Doddamani, for Sri.M.B.Kanavi, appearing for second respondent opposed the bail grounds. 9. Sri.P.N.Hatti, would further contend that victim was admittedly minor at the time of first incident and she became pregnant and therefore, even assuming that there is any consensus between the petitioner and the victim girl, same cannot be a legal consent and therefore the grounds urged in the petition are not sufficient for grant of bail. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1113 CRL.P No. 105292 of 2025 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is established that the incident has taken place and victim was aged 14 years. 12. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Independent Thought vs. Union of India and another1, the consent, if any, cannot be countenanced in law as it is not a legal consent. 13. Therefore, mere delay in lodging the complaint would not efface criminality in a serious offence. 14. At the most, the fact of lodging a belated complaint is a defence that is available to the accused to be canvassed before the trial Court during the trial. 15. Taking note of the fact that, the victim became pregnant and her pregnancy was aborted by the petitioner, again in the guise of promising to marry and thereafter taking the victim girl to Bengaluru in the guise of counselling and then took her to Mysuru, where she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse would make it clear that prima facie the petitioner is 1 (2017) 10 SCC 800 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1113 CRL.P No. 105292 of 2025 not entitled to any discretionary relief for grant of bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 16. Accordingly, the following order: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/- CT:CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 12