VENKATESH NAIK vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16791
CRL.P No. 102043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020145112026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102043 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
VENKATESH NAIK S/O. LATE KESHAVA NAIK
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
ND
R/O. 2 WARD, SUSHILA NAGAR VILLAGE,
TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583112.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THROUGH SANDUR P.S)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD-580001.
2. SHARADA W/O. SWAMY
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: LABORER
R/O. IST CROSS, NEAR AMBEDKAR BHAVAN,
SUSHILA NAGAR VILLAGE,
TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583112.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. MOQBOOLAHAMED M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C.
/U/S.438 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL. CASE NO.306/2026, IN
CONNECTION WITH (CRIME NO.11/2026 REGISTERED IN SANDUR
P.S.) U/S.64(2)(m), 65 (1) OF BNS AND 17, 5(L), 4 AND 6 OF
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2012,
PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE, BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-I, BALLARI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16791
CRL.P No. 102043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020145112026
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri. B.Anwar Basha, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent
No.1 – State and Sri Maqboolahamed M.Patil, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner/accused No.1 has filed this
petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail
in Special Case No.306/2026 in connection with Crime
No.11/2026 of Sandur Police Station, pending on the file of
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, for
the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 17, 4, 6
and 5(L) of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16791
CRL.P No. 102043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020145112026
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as
under:
On 11.01.2026, the defacto complainant lodged
complaint alleging that the petitioner developed sexual
relationship with the victim aged about 16 years during
the year 2024 and committed aggravated and penetrative
sexual assault on her. Hence, the defacto complainant
lodged the complaint. During the course of investigation,
the petitioner was arrested and in turn, he was remanded
to judicial custody.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently contended that the petitioner is innocent. He
has not committed any offence as alleged by the
prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in the case.
It is contended that the victim has not specifically made
allegation against the petitioner as to any aggravated or
penetrative sexual assault on her, before the learned
Magistrate while recording her statement under Section
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16791
CRL.P No. 102043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020145112026
183 of BNSS. Further, the medical evidence also do not
support the prosecution case. Now the investigation is
completed and the Investigating Officer has filed charge
sheet against the accused and there is no necessity for the
petitioner to continue in judicial custody. The petitioner is
ready and willing to abide by the conditions to be imposed
by this court. Hence, learned counsel prayed to allow the
petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-
State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended
that the statement of victim recorded under Section 183 of
BNSS reveals that she has categorically stated against the
petitioner and narrated the manner of aggravated and
penetrative sexual assault on her. The medical report
clearly indicates that the hymen is ruptured. If the
petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper the
prosecution witness and hamper the trial. Hence, they
prayed to dismiss the petition.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16791
CRL.P No. 102043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020145112026
6. On perusal of the material available on record,
it reveals that the victim was a minor at the time of
commission of offence i.e. the offence took place in the
year 2024. At that time, she was aged about 16 years.
Now the victim attained her age of majority. As per the
statement of victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS,
she has stated that the accused developed sexual
relationship with her. But, the victim has not specifically
averred that the petitioner committed aggravated and
penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly.
7. On perusal of the medical record, it reveals that
the doctor has not collected any samples, since the
incident happened 9 months ago. Further, the doctor has
not collected the body evidence samples and the genital
and anal evidence. Hence, in the absence of any medical
evidence, there is no definite allegation of the victim
against the petitioner as to aggravated and penetrative
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16791
CRL.P No. 102043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020145112026
sexual assault on her. Hence, it is a fit case to grant bail to
the petitioner.
8. It is well established principles of law that while
granting bail, Court has to consider the nature of the
offence, circumstances in which the offence is committed,
position and status of the petitioner with reference to the
victim and witnesses, likelihood of fleeing away from
justice, of repeating same offences by the petitioner. The
possibility of tampering with the witnesses, character and
antecedents of the petitioner. Further, the law is well
settled that while disposing of the bail petition, the Court
need not scan the prosecution papers and hold mini trial.
9. Keeping all these factors in mind, when the
Court goes through the entire material placed on record, it
can be said that prima facie there are no reasonable and
sufficient grounds to believe, at this stage, that the
petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged against him.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for bail.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16791
CRL.P No. 102043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020145112026
10. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
allowed
The criminal petition is .
The petitioner-accused No.1 is ordered to be
enlarged on bail in Special Case No.306/2026, pending on
the file of learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari,
in connection with Sandur Police Station Crime
No.11/2026, registered for the offences under Sections
64(2)(m), 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Sections 17, 4, 6 and 5(L) of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on he executing personal
bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the
like sum to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge,
subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper
the prosecution witnesses either directly or
indirectly.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16791
CRL.P No. 102043 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020145112026
(ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial Court
regularly as and when required.
(iii) The petitioner shall not involve in the
similar or any other offences.
Violation of any one of the conditions, would entitle
the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.
NOTE :- The observations made in the petition is only
for disposal of the petition.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
CLK
CT: GSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29