KRISHNA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10849
CRL.P No. 201198 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030093772026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201198 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
KRISHNA
S/O SOMALINGAPPA LAMBANI,
AGE : 35 YEARS,
OCC : JCB OPRATOR,
R/O: PARAMPUR TANDA VILLAGE,
TQ : LINGASUGUR,
DIST : RAICHUR – 584 122.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI GOVINDAGOUDA D.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH LINGASUGUR POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURGI BENCH AT KALABURGI – 585 106.
2. SMT. MOTIBAI
W/O LOKAPPA CHAVAN,
AGE : 50 YEARS,
OCC : LABOURER,
R/O: PARAMPUR TANDA VILLAGE,
TQ : LINGASUGUR,
DIST : RAICHUR – 584 122.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10849
CRL.P No. 201198 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030093772026
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SHARANAGOUDA V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C
(OLD), 483 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL
TO THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.72/2026 LINGASUGUR P.S.,
DIST. RAICHUR IN (SPL.C.NO.5034/2026) PENDING BEFORE
THE HON’BLE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAICHUR, SITTING AT SINDHANUR AND SPL. JUDGE FOR
TRIAL OF THE CASES UNDER POCSO ACT REGISTERED FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 65(1), 64(2)(M), 351(2) OF BNS, 2023,
AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned HCGP for the respondent No.1/ State on the
petition. Perused the relevant materials on record.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/
accused under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’), praying to
grant bail in his favour in the case in Spl.Case (POCSO)
No.5034 /2026 pending before the learned III Additional
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10849
CRL.P No. 201198 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030093772026
District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Raichur, Sitting at Sindhanur arising out of Crime
No.72/2026 of the respondent Police for the offences
punishable under Sections 65(1), 64(2)(m), 351(2) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 6
of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(for short ‘POCSO Act’).
3. The learned HCGP for the respondent No.1/
State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2/ de
facto complainant have orally objected to the petition
submitting that the investigation is already over and the
charge sheet is filed. The alleged offence is under
Section 6 of POCSO Act, which is heinous offence
punishable with imprisonment for a minimum term of
20 years and which may extend to imprisonment for life
which means imprisonment for the remainder of the
person’s natural life.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10849
CRL.P No. 201198 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030093772026
4. Mere fact that the investigation is already over
and the charge sheet is filed in the case cannot be a
ground to grant bail in favour of the petitioner. If the
statements of witnesses and victim and the allegations
made against the petitioner are considered, it is clear
that there is chance of petitioner tampering with the
prosecution witnesses and hampering trial of the case, if
he is released on bail. The victim in the case is child
within the meaning of POCSO Act. There is absolutely
no special ground made out by the petitioner to grant
bail in his favour. Therefore, the learned HCGP for the
respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 have sought for rejection of the bail petition.
5. The prosecution was set into motion against
the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.3 who
is mother of the victim on 06.02.2026. The case alleged
against the petitioner is that on 31.01.2026 the
complainant’s fourth daughter got admitted her children
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10849
CRL.P No. 201198 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030093772026
at Sindhanur Sahana Hospital and the complainant
sent her another daughter i.e., the victim, who is aged
15 years, to the hospital to be with her elder sister, who
was suffering from illness and admitted in the hospital.
Thereafter, at about 09.20 p.m. when the victim was not
seen in the hospital in spite of searching her by the
family members, having suspicion that some unknown
persons might have kidnapped the victim, the
complainant lodged complaint before the respondent
No.1 police, who took up investigation.
6. It is also the case of prosecution that
subsequently on 16.02.2026, the victim girl gave
statement before the police that on 31.01.2026 at about
08.00 p.m., when she went to the hospital with her
elder sister, the petitioner/ accused was following her
and talking with her that he liked her and promised to
marry and take care of her. Thereafter when she went to
the hospital the petitioner called the victim through
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10849
CRL.P No. 201198 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030093772026
mobile phone and took her in the car to Bengaluru and
they stayed in his friend’s room and he committed
sexual intercourse repeatedly and thereafter left her
near Sindhanur police station. On the basis of such
statement given by the victim, the respondent No.1
police registered the case against the petitioner for the
alleged offences. Hence, the petitioner has committed
the alleged offences.
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the
offences alleged and he has not committed any of such
offence. The contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the victim voluntarily went with the
petitioner and hence, there is no case made out against
the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section
64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10849
CRL.P No. 201198 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030093772026
8. Moreover, there is delay in filing the
complaint and there are contradictions in the statement
of the victim given before the respondent Police and also
in the statement given before the learned Magistrate
under Section 183 of BNSS regarding the facts of the
case. The statement given before the police by the
victim would state that the petitioner took her to
Bengaluru. On the other hand, in the statement given
by the victim before the learned Magistrate, the
contention of the victim is that the petitioner took her to
Pune by car.
9. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the
respondent submits regarding to the contradictions in
the statement of victim that if there is any such
contradiction in the statements of the victim, at this
stage any such material cannot be a ground to
disbelieve the case alleged against the petitioner.
Moreover, the medical report forthcoming on record and
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10849
CRL.P No. 201198 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030093772026
the school document produced from the concerned
Department would clearly show that the date of birth of
the victim is 01.06.2011. Even the medical report of the
victim would show that the victim is aged within 16
years as on the date of alleged incident. This fact would
clearly indicate that the victim is a ‘child’ within the
meaning of provisions of POCSO Act.
10. Even it is accepted for the sake of argument
that the alleged sexual assault is considered as the
consensual sexual intercourse between the petitioner
and the victim, the same does not make out any case
that the petitioner is innocent of the offence punishable
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Mere fact that the
investigation is already completed and the charge sheet
is filed in the case cannot be a ground to release the
petitioner on bail at this stage.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10849
CRL.P No. 201198 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030093772026
11. The charge sheet materials on record would
clearly reveal that there is prima facie case against the
petitioner for the alleged offence, which is heinous
offence. Further, the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 that the petitioner is
married and having three children is not disputed by
the petitioner at this stage. Therefore, the material on
record would show that if the petitioner is released on
bail at this stage, there is chance of him tampering with
the prosecution witnesses and hampering trial of the
case.
12. Mere fact that the petitioner is resident of
Parampur Tanda village, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur
District within the jurisdiction of the learned Special
Judge and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any of
the conditions imposed on him in the event of granting
him bail is no ground to grant bail to the petitioner,
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10849
CRL.P No. 201198 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030093772026
considering the nature of the offence and gravity of the
allegations made against the petitioner.
13. The prosecution papers on record would show
that on 31.01.2026, the petitioner had kidnapped the
victim who is ‘child’ within the meaning of provisions of
POCSO Act and only on 10.02.2026, the petitioner along
with the victim surrendered before the Police. It is true
that the bail is rule and jail is an exception and the
accused cannot be allowed to remain in judicial custody
during pretrial stage as punishment. However, in the
case on hand, considering the allegations made against
the petitioner, this is absolutely not a case, wherein the
petitioner can be released on bail.
14. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the victim voluntarily accompanied the
petitioner cannot be considered at this stage, as the
petitioner being child within the meaning of POCSO Act,
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10849
CRL.P No. 201198 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030093772026
even if there was her consent, such consent is
immaterial. As submitted by learned HCGP, the
statement of the victim given before the respondent
Police would clearly reveal that there is overt act of the
petitioner to show that he committed aggravated sexual
assault repeatedly on the victim. Absolutely there is no
reason to disbelieve the materials forthcoming from the
prosecution on record at this stage.
15. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner has been in judicial
custody from 25.03.2026 i.e., almost for the period of
more than six months as on this day. But, as pointed
out by the learned HCGP, considering the gravity of
offence and also the punishment to the alleged offence,
the mere fact that the petitioner has been in judicial
custody for the period of more than six months cannot
be a ground to grant bail in his favour at this stage.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10849
CRL.P No. 201198 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030093772026
16. Further, as submitted by the learned HCGP,
there are prima facie materials against the petitioner for
the alleged offence. The said offence is heinous offence
punishable with imprisonment for a minimum term of
20 years and it may extend to imprisonment for life
which means imprisonment for the remainder of the
person’s natural life. From the conduct of petitioner, it
would be clear that if he is released on bail at this stage,
there is chance of him tampering with prosecution
witnesses and hampering trial of the case. In such
case, the prosecution, specifically the complainant, who
is mother of the victim, and also the victim will be put to
hardship and inconvenience.
17. There is no any special ground made out by
the petitioner to grant bail in his favour. There is
absolutely no reason to disbelieve the reasoning of the
trial Court in the impugned order, wherein the trial
Court has rejected the bail application of the petitioner.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10849
CRL.P No. 201198 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030093772026
The petitioner has failed to make out any ground to
grant bail in his favour and consequently, this petition
is liable to be dismissed.
18. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
MBB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7