SRI BASAVARAJ vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11323
CRL.P No. 201349 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030105372026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH


TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201349 OF 2026

(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SRI BASAVARAJ
S/O NARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC : LABOURER,
R/AT: BHOMANAGUNDA VILLAGE,
TQ : ARAKERA,
DIST : RAICHUR – 562 106.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI YATNAL PARASAPPA GURAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY JALAHALLI POLICE STATION,
DEVADURGA TALUK, RAICHUR DIST,
REP. BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
KALABURAGI – 560 001.

2. VICTIM GIRL :
UNDER THE GUARDINASHIP
OF HER NATURAL MOTHER BY NAME
HANUMANTI
W/O TAYAPPA, AGE : 38 YEARS,
OCC : HOUSE WIFE,
R/AT: BHOMANAGUNDA VILLAGE,
TQ : ARAKERA, DIST : RAICHUR – 584 111.
…RESPONDENTS









Digitally signed
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11323
CRL.P No. 201349 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030105372026


(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R2;
V/O DATED 14.10.2026 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS (439
OF CR.P.C), PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.89/2026, 137(2)
AND 64 OF BNS-2023 AND UNDER SECTION 4 AND 6 OF
POCSO ACT 2012, REGISTERED BY JALAHALLI POLICE
STATION, DEVADURGA TALUK AND RAICHUR DISTRICT AND
NOW SPL.C.NO.343/2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

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.343/2026 pending before the learned I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Raichur arising out of

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11323
CRL.P No. 201349 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030105372026


Crime No.89/2026 of the respondent Police for the
offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 64 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections
4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’).

3. The learned HCGP has 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, which may extend to imprisonment for life
which means imprisonment for the remainder of the
person’s natural life.

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
statement of witnesses and victim and the allegations

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11323
CRL.P No. 201349 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030105372026


made against the petitioner are considered, it would be
clear that there is chance of petitioner tampering with
the prosecution witnesses and tampering with the trial
of the case, if he is released on bail. There is absolutely
no special ground made out by the petitioner to grant
bail in his favour. Therefore, the learned HCGP has
sought for rejection of the bail petition.

5. The prosecution was set into motion against
the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2, who
is mother of the victim on 04.05.2026. The case alleged
against the petitioner is that the victim is aged 17 years.
About one month prior to the incident, the petitioner
who belongs to the community of the respondent No.2
used to say that he liked the victim girl and decided to
marry her to which the respondent No.2 refused his
offer stating that the victim is minor. She also warned
the petitioner against his frequent visit to her house and
talking to her daughter who is minor.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11323
CRL.P No. 201349 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030105372026



6. When the matter stood thus, about two weeks
ago, when the victim girl along with younger brother of
the respondent No.2 went to Bhumanagunda village and
stayed there. On 01.05.2026 at about 06.00 a.m., her
younger brother called her and informed that the victim
girl was not seen in the house. Thereafter, the
respondent No.2 after suspecting that the petitioner
might have eloped with her daughter gave complaint
before the respondent police. Thereafter the victim
informed the respondent No.2 that the petitioner
committed sexual intercourse with her. Later the case
was registered against the petitioner. 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. In support of such contention, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11323
CRL.P No. 201349 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030105372026


this Court to the statement of the victim recorded by the
learned Magistrate under Section 183 of BNSS, wherein
there is no allegation against the petitioner regarding
the sexual intercourse on the victim.

8. The only contention of the victim in the
statement is that both the petitioner and the victim were
in love with each other. Hence, the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that there are
discrepancies in the statement of the victim given before
the Investigating officer and also before the learned
Magistrate and therefore at this stage, there is no prima
facie case made out against the petitioner for the alleged
offences and hence the petitioner is entitled for grant of
bail in his favour.

9. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the
respondent submits that the statement given by the
victim before the respondent Police would clearly make

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11323
CRL.P No. 201349 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030105372026


out the case against the petitioners for the alleged
offence that there was repeated sexual assault on the
victim by the petitioner.

10. Further, as submitted by learned HCGP, it is
pertinent to note that initially the case was registered
against the petitioner for the offence under Section
137(2) of BNS alleging that he kidnapped the victim. The
complaint was given by the mother of the victim and as
per the said complaint, the petitioner used to love the
victim, even though the same was resisted by both the
victim and the complainant.

11. As pointed out by learned HCGP, the fact that
the victim was aged about 17 years as on the date of
incident and hence, she is ‘child’ within the meaning of
the provisions of POCSO Act is not disputed by the
petitioner. The contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the document issued by the school

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11323
CRL.P No. 201349 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030105372026


authorities cannot be considered to determine the age of
the victim as date of birth is mentioned as 01.06.2009
i.e., usual the date of birth mentioned at the time of
admission of the student to the school, might not be
correct date of birth.

12. Per contra, as pointed out by learned HCGP,
there is report of the radiologist which is part of the
charge sheet material and it would show that the age of
the victim is 16 years. Further, the question whether
the petitioner is child or not, within the meaning of
provisions of POCSO Act is the matter to be considered
during of trial on the merits of the case. At this stage,
there is no reason to disbelieve the case of prosecution
that the victim is ‘child’ within the meaning of
provisions of POCSO Act, as she is within the age of 18
years.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11323
CRL.P No. 201349 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030105372026



13. It is pertinent to mention that even though
there are certain contradictions in the statements given
by the victim before the police and also before the
learned Magistrate as contended by learned counsel for
the petitioner, the same cannot be a ground to come to
the conclusion that the allegations made against the
petitioner are false averments and the petitioner has not
committed any such offence.

14. On the other hand, the offence alleged against
the petitioner is punishable under Section 6 of POCSO
Act which is heinous offence and the said offence is
exclusively triable by the learned Special Judge.
Moreover, at the initial stage itself, the complaint was
given by the respondent No.2 regarding kidnapping of
the victim by the petitioner and after apprehending the
petitioner along with the victim, the victim gave
statement before the police, which would clearly make

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11323
CRL.P No. 201349 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030105372026


out the case against the petitioner for the alleged
offences.

15. 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 the child within the meaning of
provisions of POCSO Act, even if there was her consent,
such consent is immaterial.

16. 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 that
he committed forcible sexual intercourse repeatedly on
the victim. Absolutely there is no reason to disbelieve
the materials forthcoming from the prosecution on
record at this stage.

17. Further, as submitted by the learned HCGP,
there are prima facie materials against the petitioner for

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11323
CRL.P No. 201349 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030105372026


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

18. As observed by the learned Sessions Judge in
the order while denying bail to the petitioner, there are
materials on record that the petitioner being resident of
the same village committed the alleged heinous offence
on the victim, who is child within the meaning of
provisions of POCSO Act, by alluring and enticing her
under the pretext of love and marriage and took her
away from her lawful guardianship when she had been
to her maternal uncle’s house at Gaddigi village on
01.05.2026 without informing them and committed
repeated sexual assault on the victim girl.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11323
CRL.P No. 201349 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030105372026



19. 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 along with the victim, will be put to
hardship and inconvenience.

20. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner has been in judicial
custody from 06.05.2026 i.e., almost for the period of
more than 5 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 which is
heinous offence, the mere fact that the petitioner has
been in judicial custody for the period of more than 5
months cannot be a ground to grant bail in his favour at
this stage.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11323
CRL.P No. 201349 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030105372026



21. It is true that bail is rule and jail is an
exception and the accused cannot be kept in judicial
custody during pretrial stage as punishment for the
alleged offences. However, it is well settled that every
case should be considered on the facts of each case. As
discussed herein above, there is prima facie case made
out to show that the victim is ‘child’ within the meaning
of provisions of POCSO Act and the petitioner used to
entice and allure the victim girl on the pretext of love
and marriage, which was resisted by the respondent
No.2. It is clear from the averments of the complaint
made at the initial stage. Considering the allegations
made against the petitioner and the materials
forthcoming on record, if the petitioner is released on
bail at this stage, there is chance of him tampering with
prosecution witnesses and hampering trial of the case.

22. There is no any special ground made out by
the petitioner to grant bail in his favour. There is

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11323
CRL.P No. 201349 of 2026


CNR: KAHC030105372026


absolutely no reason to disbelieve the reasoning of the
trial Court in the impugned order, wherein the trial
Court has rejected bail application of the petitioner. The
petitioner has failed to make out any ground to grant
bail in his favour, at least till the examination of the
victim girl and other material witnesses of the case
before the trial Court. Consequently, this petition filed
by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

23. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is hereby dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty
move the trial Court/ learned Special
Judge for bail after examination of the
victim and other material witnesses in the
case, if so advised.


Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE

MBB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15