Karnataka HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Raping Woman As She Slept At Home, Says He May Renew Plea After Final Report

The petitioner, the sole accused in Crime No. 151/2026 of Jalahalli Police Station, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a case alleging offences under Sections 64(1) and 329(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that on 27 July 2026 the petitioner entered the complainant’s home at night and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her

The petitioner denied the allegations and relied, among other things, on the complainant’s age and marital status and a delay of approximately four days in lodging the complaint

The victim had also made a specific allegation against the petitioner in a statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS

The Sessions Court had rejected the petitioner’s bail application on 17 September 2026; the High Court considered the present petition while investigation remained incomplete

Section 483 BNSS provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of the bail application

The alleged offences were under Sections 64(1) and 329(4) BNS

In considering bail, the Court assessed the allegations, the nature and gravity of the offences, the status of the investigation, and the risk of interference with witnesses or the investigation

The Court noted that the alleged offence was punishable by rigorous imprisonment of not less than ten years, extendable to life imprisonment, and was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court

The Court found that the complaint contained a specific allegation of forcible sexual intercourse and that the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS also specifically implicated the petitioner; at this stage, there was no basis to disbelieve those allegations

It held that the delay of three to four days did not justify disbelief of the complaint, particularly because a reason for the delay had been given and the investigation was ongoing

Given the gravity of the alleged offence, the incomplete investigation, the case’s reliance in part on circumstantial evidence, and the risk of witness tampering or obstruction, the petitioner’s period in custody of more than two and a half months was not sufficient to warrant bail

It left the petitioner at liberty to apply for bail before the Sessions Court after completion of the investigation and filing of the final report