Facts
The petitioner, aged 23, was arrested after police traced him with a 17-year-old girl at his residence in Kumta.
Source reference: pp. 3–5The girl’s mother had reported her missing; the case was transferred to Rajajinagar Police Station, Bengaluru, and registered as Crime No. 60 of 2026.
Source reference: pp. 3–5The girl stated during medical examination and in statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS that she and the petitioner were in love, and that she had gone with him voluntarily and had sexual intercourse with him.
Source reference: pp. 3–5Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 137(2) and 64 of the BNS, 2023, and Sections 5(L), 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Source reference: pp. 2–3The Trial Court rejected the petitioner’s bail application on 3 August 2026, prompting this petition under Section 483 of the BNSS.
Source reference: pp. 2–3Issues
Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in the pending case, having regard to the circumstances on record, including the ages of the petitioner and the girl, their relationship, and the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedents.
Source reference: pp. 5–6Law Applied
The petition was considered under Section 483 of the BNSS, which provides the High Court’s jurisdiction to grant bail.
Source reference: pp. 2, 6The alleged offences were under Sections 137(2) and 64 of the BNS, 2023, and Sections 5(L), 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Source reference: pp. 2, 6In deciding the application, the Court treated the parties’ ages and relationship, the girl’s recorded statements, and the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedents as relevant considerations.
Source reference: pp. 5–6The order cites no precedent or elaborated statutory test for bail.
Source reference: pp. 5–6Reasoning
The Court noted that the girl, aged 17, had consistently stated that she and the petitioner were in love and that she had gone with him voluntarily.
Source reference: p. 5It also considered that the petitioner was 23, had no other criminal antecedents, and that the investigation had concluded with a charge sheet filed.
Source reference: pp. 3, 5–6Treating the parties’ ages and relationship as relevant to the bail assessment, the Court concluded that the application should be allowed, subject to conditions.
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The High Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail in Special Case No. 1642 of 2026, subject to execution of a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum and conditions concerning attendance, non-interference with witnesses, avoidance of similar offences, and travel outside the Trial Court’s jurisdiction.
Acts & Sections Cited
9 provisions across 4 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20233
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20232
Original Court PDF
PRASHANTH BEERAPAP AMBIGAvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
