Karnataka High Court says police should not independently record a victim’s further statement after her magistrate-recorded statement; grants accused anticipatory bail in POCSO case

The petitioner, Accused No. 1, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a case arising from an FIR initially registered against unknown persons for kidnapping.

The complainant was the mother of a 17-year-old girl who had left home and was later traced by police.

In her statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS on 29 January 2026, the girl described leaving home and travelling to Murugamalla, but made no allegation against the petitioner that disclosed any of the subsequently charged offences.

The investigating officer later recorded a further statement on 12 February 2026 alleging sexual assault, and a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and his relatives for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

After the Sessions Court rejected his anticipatory-bail application, the petitioner approached the High Court.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations in the FIR and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS.

2. Whether the investigating officer could independently record a further statement from the victim after her statement had been recorded by a Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS.

Section 482 BNSS provides the basis for seeking anticipatory bail.

Section 183 BNSS governs the recording of statements by a Magistrate.

The Court held that where a further statement of the victim is required after her statement has been recorded under Section 183 BNSS, the investigating officer ought to produce her before the Magistrate for recording that further statement and should not independently record it.

The Court considered the offences charged under Sections 137(2), 351(2), 64(2) and 249 BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act in deciding the bail application.

The Court considered that the FIR concerned the girl’s disappearance and that her statement before the Magistrate did not implicate the petitioner in any of the charged offences.

The sexual-assault allegations appeared only in the investigating officer’s later-recorded further statement.

The Court criticised the officer for recording that statement independently after the Section 183 BNSS statement, reasoning that this undermined the statutory process’s sanctity.

Having regard to the nature of the initial allegations and the Magistrate-recorded statement, the Court concluded that anticipatory bail was warranted, subject to conditions.

He was required to appear before the investigating officer within 15 days, execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, attend trial unless exempted, cooperate with the investigation, refrain from tampering with prosecution witnesses, and not involve himself in similar offences.