Karnataka HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Repeated Sexual Assault On 17-Year-Old, Allows Fresh Plea After Victim And Material Witnesses Testify

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS in light of the alleged offences, the prosecution material, and the risk of interference with witnesses or the trial.

The court held

The Court dismissed the bail petition, finding no special ground warranting release at that stage.

It also directed

It left the petitioner at liberty to seek bail before the trial Court/Special Judge after the victim and other material witnesses had been examined.

01Facts

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging offences under Sections 137(2) and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶ 2–3

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner took the victim, stated to be under 18, from her lawful guardianship and repeatedly sexually assaulted her.

¶ 10–12

The petitioner relied on alleged inconsistencies between the victim’s police statement and her statement before the Magistrate, and submitted that she had accompanied him voluntarily.

¶ 7–8

The investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed; the petitioner had been in custody since 6 May 2026.

¶ 18, 20

The Sessions Court had rejected bail.

¶ 22

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS in light of the alleged offences, the prosecution material, and the risk of interference with witnesses or the trial.

¶ 3–4, 16–19, 21–22

ii.Whether completion of the investigation, the petitioner’s period in custody, the victim’s alleged voluntary accompaniment, or inconsistencies in her statements justified granting bail.

¶ 7–8, 13, 15, 20–21

03Law Applied

The Court considered the bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS and the charged offences under Sections 137(2) and 64 of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶ 2–3

It noted that an offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act carries a minimum term of 20 years’ imprisonment and may extend to imprisonment for life.

¶ 17

The Court acknowledged the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, while emphasizing that bail applications must be decided on the facts of each case and that pretrial detention must not serve as punishment.

¶ 21

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483 Section 183

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137 Section 64

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4 Section 6

04Reasoning

The Court found prima facie material supporting the prosecution’s case that the victim was a child and that the petitioner had enticed her and committed repeated sexual assault.

¶ 7–8, 11–16

It considered the claimed inconsistencies in the victim’s statements insufficient, at the bail stage, to establish that the allegations were false; it also held that alleged consent was immaterial if the victim was under 18.

¶ 7–8, 11–16

Although the charge sheet had been filed and the petitioner had spent more than five months in custody, the Court held those circumstances insufficient to outweigh the gravity of the alleged offence and the risk of witness tampering and disruption of the trial, particularly before the victim and other material witnesses had been examined.

¶ 3–4, 19–22