Facts
The victim alleged that accused No. 1, the son of the petitioners, had sexual relations with her on a promise of marriage while she was staying at the petitioners’ home.
Source reference: p. 2–4After she became pregnant, the petitioners allegedly advised her family to terminate the pregnancy and later refused to consent to the marriage.
Source reference: p. 2–4The victim’s complaint led to Crime No. 249/2026, registered for offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 69 and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Source reference: p. 2–4The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Source reference: p. 2–4Issues
1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations and material against them
Source reference: p. 4–72. Whether anticipatory bail could be granted subject to conditions addressing the petitioners’ cooperation with the investigation and the risk of interference with witnesses
Source reference: p. 5, 7–9Law Applied
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides for anticipatory bail.
Source reference: p. 4In deciding whether to grant that relief, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the severity of the punishment, the likelihood of the accused absconding, their character and antecedents, and the possibility of tampering with prosecution witnesses
Source reference: p. 4, 7The Court cited no precedent.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court distinguished the allegations against accused No. 1 from those against the petitioners.
Source reference: p. 5–6The victim’s Section 183 BNSS statement specifically described the alleged sexual assault by accused No. 1, while the allegations against the petitioners concerned their alleged role in advising termination of the pregnancy and their subsequent refusal to agree to the marriage.
Source reference: p. 5–6Considering the material and the parties’ submissions, the Court found no serious allegation or material warranting the petitioners’ arrest and concluded that the circumstances justified anticipatory bail, subject to safeguards.
Source reference: p. 6–7Holding
The petition was allowed, and the police were directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 249/2026.
Each petitioner was required to execute a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, surrender to the investigating officer within 15 days of receiving the certified order, attend court hearings, refrain from tampering with witnesses or committing similar offences, and report to the investigating officer on the first and sixteenth of each month for six months or until the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Source reference: p. 8–9A breach of conditions would permit the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.
Source reference: p. 9Acts & Sections Cited
6 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20233
Indian Penal Code, 18601
Original Court PDF
SHAMASHAD ABDULRAJAK SAYYAD,vsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
