BABANSINGH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10456
CRL.P No. 201166 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030091822026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201166 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
BABANSINGH
S/O SHYAMSINGH
PATTAR, AGE:57 YEARS,
OCCU:COOLIE,
R/O. BARATAGI LT-5,
TQ. TIKOTA,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 130.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
THE SHO VIJAYAPURA RURAL PS.,
REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 103.
2.
SMT. SUSHILABAI
S/O BABUSING PATTAR
AGE:53 YEARS, OCCU:LABOUR,
R/O. BARATAGI LT-5, TQ. TIKOTA,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 130.
Digitally signed by
SUMITRA
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. MILINDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10456
CRL.P No. 201166 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030091822026
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO,
ALLOW THIS BAIL PETITION AND THEREBY ORDER THE
RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.CASE (POCSO)
NO.54/2026 (ARISING OUT OF VIJAYAPURA RURAL PS CRIME
NO.219/2026) ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT-I, VIJAYAPURA, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.64(2)(m) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA
SANHITA, 2023 ALONG WITH S.5(I), 5(j) AND S.6 OF
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT,
2012 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, the
learned Addl. SPP for the respondent No.1/ State and
also the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/ de
facto complainant on the petition. Perused the relevant
materials on record.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10456
CRL.P No. 201166 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030091822026
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/
accused No.1 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’), praying to
enlarge him on bail in the case in Spl.Case (POCSO)
No.54/2026 pending before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court-I, Vijayapura,
arising out of Crime No.219/2026 of the respondent
Police for the offences punishable under Sections
64(2)(m) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’)
and Sections 5(l), 5(j) 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 there is prima facie case
against the petitioner for the alleged offence. The
offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable
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
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10456
CRL.P No. 201166 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030091822026
which means imprisonment for the remainder of the
person’s natural life. Moreover, the investigation is
already over and the charge sheet is filed against the
petitioner. 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. There
is no any 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.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2
has not chosen to file any objections to the petition.
However, he has orally objected to the petition
submitting that there is prima facie case against the
petitioner. The investigation is completed and the
charge sheet is filed against the petitioner for the alleged
offence, which is heinous in nature. At this stage,
considering the allegations made against the petitioner,
if the petitioner is released on bail, there is chance of
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10456
CRL.P No. 201166 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030091822026
him tampering with prosecution witnesses and
hampering trial of the case. Therefore, the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 has also sought for
dismissal of the petition.
5. The case alleged against the petitioner is that
the victim was aged about 15 years and 9 months and
she is specially disabled person. About four months
prior to lodging of complaint, she went to the hospital
for treatment regarding her fever and it was found that
the victim was pregnant. On enquiry, it was revealed
that victim and the petitioner were from same village
and as a daily routine, the victim would take her cattle
for grazing in the land of one Santosh Pattar, where the
petitioner used to work and the victim was acquainted
with the petitioner.
6. When the matter stood thus, on 01.01.2026
at about 02.00 p.m., the petitioner found the victim
alone in the said land and he forcibly took her to the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10456
CRL.P No. 201166 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030091822026
shed situated in the said land and committed repeated
sexual intercourse on her. Thereafter, the petitioner/
accused No.1 had forcible sexual intercourse with the
victim on multiple occasions. Further, the accused No.2,
who was the friend of petitioner after coming to know of
the said fact, he also committed repeated sexual
intercourse with the victim on multiple occasions. The
petitioner had threatened the victim not to disclose the
said fact to anybody. Thereafter, the complaint was
given against the petitioner by the mother of victim and
the case was registered against the petitioner. Hence,
the petitioner and accused No.2 are alleged to have
committed the 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. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent
No.1 submits that the investigation is completed and
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10456
CRL.P No. 201166 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030091822026
the charge sheet is already filed against the petitioner
for the alleged offences. There is prima facie case made
out against the petitioner for having committed the
alleged offence, which is heinous in nature.
8. As submitted by learned HCGP, the victim
has given statement before the learned Magistrate under
Section 183 of BNSS, wherein there is specific allegation
made against the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage,
any of the contentions that the petitioner is innocent of
the offences alleged against him and he has not
committed any such offence does not merit
consideration.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the name of the petitioner is not
mentioned by the victim before the learned Magistrate in
her statement. However, the statement of the victim
clearly reveals that she told the name of the Pawan
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10456
CRL.P No. 201166 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030091822026
Singh and Pandu before the learned Magistrate. The
said Pandu is referred to the accused No.2 and Pawan
Singh is referred to the petitioner in the statement given
by the victim before the learned Magistrate.
10. Moreover, mere fact that the DNA report does
not show that the petitioner is the biological father of
the concerned child born to the victim cannot be a
ground at this stage, to disbelieve the case alleged
against the petitioner. There is absolutely no ground to
disbelieve the statement of the victim given at the time
of investigation before the respondent No.1 police and
also before the learned Magistrate.
11. It is undisputed fact that the victim is
mentally retarded child to some extent and that she is
aged within 18 years. Hence, she is ‘child’ within the
meaning of the provisions of POCSO Act. Moreover, as
the investigation is already over and the charge sheet is
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10456
CRL.P No. 201166 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030091822026
filed against the petitioner and the accused No.2, there
is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the case of
prosecution at this stage.
12. One of the grounds urged by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court has
granted bail to accused No.2 and hence on the ground
of parity, the petitioner is also entitled for the relief of
bail. However, on going through the reasoning of the
trial Court in the order of granting bail to accused No.2,
it would be clear that the accused No.2 is aged about 84
years and he is suffering from ailments. Therefore, on
that ground the trial Court has granted bail to the
accused No.2. Therefore, mere fact that the trial Court
has granted bail to the accused No.2 cannot be reason
to grant bail to the petitioner/ accused No.1 on the
ground of parity.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10456
CRL.P No. 201166 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030091822026
13. Per contra , as submitted by learned HCGP,
the statement given before the respondent Police clearly
reveals that there is overt act of the petitioner that he
committed aggravated sexual assaults repeatedly on the
victim. Therefore, absolutely there is no reason to
disbelieve the relevant materials forthcoming on record
from the prosecution at this stage.
14. The materials on record and the petition
averments clearly reveal that any of the grounds urged
by the petitioner cannot be a reason to enlarge him on
bail at this stage. Moreover, if the statement of the
victim is taken into consideration, at this stage it is
clear that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is
chance of him tampering with prosecution witnesses
and hampering trial of the case.
15. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner has been in judicial
custody from 10.05.2026 i.e., almost for the period of
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10456
CRL.P No. 201166 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030091822026
more than four and half months as on this day. But, as
pointed out by the learned HCGP, considering the
gravity of offence and the punishment for the alleged
offence, which is heinous offence, mere fact that the
petitioner has been in judicial custody for the period of
more than four and half months cannot be a ground to
grant bail in his favour at this stage.
16. There is no 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. The
petitioner has failed to make out any ground to grant
bail in his favour and consequently, this petition is
liable to be dismissed.
17. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10456
CRL.P No. 201166 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030091822026
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.
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
MBB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15