Karnataka High CourtCriminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Man Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Pregnant 17-Year-Old Gets Anticipatory Bail As Karnataka HC Cites Affidavits To Marry When She Turns 18

ROSHANJAMEER S/O MAQBOOL AHMAD HONKANv.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Man Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Pregnant 17-Year-Old Gets Anticipatory Bail As Karnataka HC Cites Affidavits To Marry When She Turns 18. ROSHANJAMEER S/O MAQBOOL AHMAD HONKAN vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 99/2026, subject to conditions.

It also directed

These included executing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with one surety for the like sum; surrendering before the Investigating Officer or Station House Officer within 15 days of receiving the order; cooperating with the investigation; not tampering with prosecution witnesses; marking attendance on the first Sunday of each month for six months or until the charge-sheet was filed, whichever occurred earlier; and not committing similar offences.

The prosecution was permitted to seek cancellation of bail in the event of a breach.

01Facts

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in Bankapura Police Station Crime No. 99/2026, registered under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

pp. 2–5

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, under the guise of marriage, committed aggravated and penetrative sexual assault on the victim, who became pregnant.

pp. 2–5

The Court recorded that the victim was 17 years and 7 months old at the time of the incident.

pp. 2–5

The petitioner, the victim, and her father (the de facto complainant and natural guardian) had filed affidavits stating that they were willing for the petitioner and victim to marry once she attained majority.

pp. 2–5

The Court noted that the investigation was complete and that the petitioner’s bail application before the Special Judge had been rejected.

pp. 2–5

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

pp. 2–5

ii.Whether the parties’ affidavits expressing willingness for a marriage after the victim attained majority, together with completion of the investigation, justified granting bail subject to conditions.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

The petition was considered under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning anticipatory bail.

pp. 2, 5–7

The alleged offences were under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

pp. 2, 5–7

The order cited no judicial precedents and did not set out a broader test for granting anticipatory bail; it relied on the circumstances recorded in the case and imposed conditions to address the prosecution’s concerns.

pp. 2, 5–7

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 438

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 64

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

04Reasoning

The Court considered the victim’s age, the allegations and resulting pregnancy, the affidavits filed by the petitioner, victim, and guardian expressing willingness for a marriage after the victim attained majority, and the fact that the investigation had been completed.

pp. 4–5

It reasoned that continued custody would serve no purpose in light of those circumstances and that the State’s apprehensions could be addressed through bail conditions.

pp. 4–5

On that basis, it found no impediment to granting anticipatory bail.

pp. 4–5

05Holding

The Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 99/2026, subject to conditions.

pp. 5–7

These included executing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with one surety for the like sum; surrendering before the Investigating Officer or Station House Officer within 15 days of receiving the order; cooperating with the investigation; not tampering with prosecution witnesses; marking attendance on the first Sunday of each month for six months or until the charge-sheet was filed, whichever occurred earlier; and not committing similar offences.

pp. 5–7

The prosecution was permitted to seek cancellation of bail in the event of a breach.

pp. 5–7
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

ROSHANJAMEER S/O MAQBOOL AHMAD HONKANvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · October 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment