Karnataka High Court
Criminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Bail granted in POCSO case considering the parties’ relationship, ages, and absence of criminal antecedents.

PRASHANTH BEERAPAP AMBIGA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: October 08, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Bail granted in POCSO case considering the parties’ relationship, ages, and absence of criminal antecedents.. PRASHANTH BEERAPAP AMBIGA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

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. 3–5

The 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. 3–5

The 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. 3–5

Following 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. 2–3

The Trial Court rejected the petitioner’s bail application on 3 August 2026, prompting this petition under Section 483 of the BNSS.

Source reference: pp. 2–3
02

Issues

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. 5–6
03

Law 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, 6

The 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, 6

In 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. 5–6

The order cites no precedent or elaborated statutory test for bail.

Source reference: pp. 5–6
04

Reasoning

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. 5

It 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, 5–6

Treating 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. 5
05

Holding

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.
06

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

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20123

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

PRASHANTH BEERAPAP AMBIGAvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · October 08, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment