Karnataka High Court
Shri. Mahesh S/O. Mangalappa Chandapur vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8560
CRL.RP No. 100175 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100175 OF 2025
(397 OF Cr.PC/438 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. MAHESH S/O. MANGALAPPA CHANDAPUR,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TEACHER,
SILICON APARTMENT, NEAR KARNATAKA CIRCLE,
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T. R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS APMC NAVANAGAR P. S,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD, PIN-580011.
2. SMT. NANDA W/O. MANJUNATH GAMBYAPUR,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
UNAKAL, HUBBALLI, NOW AT: VANISRI NAGAR,
Digitally signed SATTUR, DHARWAD, PIN-580009.
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR ...RESPONDENTS
Location: High
Court of
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 R/W.442 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 23.04.2025 PASSED IN APMC NAVANAGAR P.S.
CRIME NO.24/2025 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 64 OF BNS 2023, AND SECTIONS 6, 8 AND 10 OF
THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCE ACT 2012
AGAINST HIM, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD AND RELEASE PETITIONER/
ACCUSED ON BAIL BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION
PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8560
CRL.RP No. 100175 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
Heard Sri.T.R.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri.Jairam Siddi., learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1 - State and Sri.Lingesh V.
kattemane, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner/accused has filed this petition
under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS'),
praying to set-aside the order passed in APMC Navanagar
PS Crime No.24/2025 registered for the offence 64 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS'), and
Sections 6, 8 and 10 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act (for short, 'the POCSO Act').
3. The accused had filed an application under
Section 187(3) read with Section 193(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS'),
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8560
HC-KAR
before the trial Court to release him on bail in APMC
Navanagar Police Station Crime No.24/2025 registered for
the offences punishable under Section 64 of the BNS and
under Sections 6, 8, an 10 of the POCSO Act, on the
ground that the Investigation Agency has not filed charge
sheet within a period of 60 days from the date of arrest of
the accused. The petitioner was arrested on 19.02.2025
and since then, he is in judicial custody.
4. As per the proviso to Section 187(3) read with
Section 193(2) of the BNSS, the Investigation Agency has
to file final report within a period of 60 days from the date
of the arrest of the accused. Since the Police failed to file
the charge sheet within the stipulated period of 60 days,
the accused is entitled for grant of statutory bail. He is
ready to offer surety to the satisfaction of the Court.
Hence, he had filed an application before the trial Court.
The trial Court rejected his application. Hence, the
petitioner has preferred this petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8560
HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the investigation in this case is not completed as
provided under the aforesaid provisions and the petitioner
has been in custody since 19.02.2025.
6. The petitioner is involved in the offence
punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Section 6 of
the POCSO Act, reads as under:
6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual
assault-1) whoever commits aggravated penetrated
sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment
for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the
remainder of natural life of that person, and shall also
be liable to fine, or with death.
2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just
and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the
medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.
7. As per Section 187(3) of the BNSS, 2023 - the
Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8560
HC-KAR
persons, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is
satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no
Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused
person in custody under this sub-Section for a total period
exceeding-
i. Ninety days, where the investigation relates to an
offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life
or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more.
ii. Sixty days, where the investigation relates to any
other offence, and on the expiry of the said period of
ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the
accused person shall be released on bail if he is
prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person
released on bail under this sub-section shall be
deemed to be so released under the provisions of
Chapter XXXV for the purpose of that chapter.
8. Section 193(2) of the BNSS, 2023- Report of
Police officer on completion of investigation, which reads
as under:
193. Report of police officer on completion of
investigation.--(1) Every investigation under this
Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8560
HC-KAR
(2) The investigation in relation to an offence under
sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or under sections 4, 6, 8 or section
10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 shall be completed within two months from the date
on which the information was recorded by the officer in
charge of the police station.
(3) (i) As soon as the investigation is completed, the
officer in charge of the police station shall forward,
including through electronic communication to a
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence
on a police report, a report in the form as the State
Government may, by rules provide, stating--
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be
acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d)
whether any offence appears to have been committed
and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether the accused has been released on his bond
or bail bond;
(g) whether the accused has been forwarded in custody
under section 190;
(h) whether the report of medical examination of the
woman has been attached where investigation relates to
an offence under sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 or
section 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;
(i) the sequence of custody in case of electronic
device;
(ii) the police officer shall, within a period of ninety
days, inform the progress of the investigation by any
means including through electronic communication to the
informant or the victim;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8560
HC-KAR
(iii) the officer shall also communicate, in such manner
as the State Government may, by rules, provide, the
action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the
information relating to the commission of the offence
was first given.
(4) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed
under section 177, the report shall, in any case in which
the State Government by general or special order so
directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may,
pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in
charge of the police station to make further investigation.
(5) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under
this section that the accused has been released on his
bond or bail bond, the Magistrate shall make such order
for the discharge of such bond or bail bond or otherwise
as he thinks fit.
(6) When such report is in respect of a case to which
section 190 applies, the police officer shall forward to the
Magistrate along with the report--
(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which
the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already
sent to the Magistrate during investigation;
(b) the statements recorded under section 180 of all the
persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its
witnesses.
(7) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any
such statement is not relevant to the subject matter of
the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not
essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in
the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the
statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to
exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the
accused and stating his reasons for making such request.
(8) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (7),
the police officer investigating the case shall also submit
such number of copies of the police report along with
other documents duly indexed to the Magistrate for
supply to the accused as required under section 230:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8560
HC-KAR
Provided that supply of report and other documents by
electronic communication shall be considered as duly
served.
(9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude
further investigation in respect of an offence after a report
under sub-section (3) has been forwarded to the
Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer
in charge of the police station obtains further evidence,
oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a
further report or reports regarding such evidence in the
form as the State Government may, by rules, provide;
and the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (8) shall, as far
as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as
they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-
section (3):
Provided that further investigation during the trial may be
conducted with the permission of the Court trying the
case and the same shall be completed within a period of
ninety days which may be extended with the permission
of the Court.(Old Corresponding Section:Sec.173 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973)
9. It shows that in the cases relating to Section 6
of the POCSO Act, the investigation has to be completed
within a period of two months from the date on which the
information was recorded by the Officer In-charge of the
Police Station.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the
decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8560
HC-KAR
Crl.RP.No.100051/2025 dated 04.03.2025 at paragraphs
30 to 34 which reads as under:
30 "Applying the principles of law enunciated in the
aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on
by the parties as referred supra, there cannot be any iota
of doubt in the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Udaya Mohanlal Acharya and
Anupam J. Kulkarni supra, that accused enjoys
indefeasible right to seek for grant of statutory bail if
there is no filing of the charge sheet within the prescribed
period. It is also to be noted that filing of Charge Sheet
subsequently would not take away the right already
accrued.
31 As already observed supra, filing of the
charge sheet as is contemplated under Section 193(2) of
Cr.P.C. could be treated as mandatory even in case where
the accused is not arrested is to be discussed in an
appropriate case.
32 For the purpose of disposing of the present
case, since the accused-petitioner is arrested on the very
next day on 26.11.2024, filing of the charge sheet on
24.01.2025 is well within the ambit of Section 193(2)of
the BNSS in the case on hand which is sufficient
compliance of the said provision.
33 It is needless to emphasise that once the
charge sheet is filed ticking of the clock with regarding to
statutory right which is carved out in the Statute would
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8560
HC-KAR
automatically stop. As could be seen from the material on
records, in the charge sheet dated 24.01.2025 and actual
cognizance has been taken on 29.01.2025 as referred
supra and thereafter necessary endorsements has been
carried out in the relevant registers wherein, the pending
FIR is culminated in filing a charge sheet and a special
case came to be registered.
34 In view of the principles of law enunciated in
the case of Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain supra,
this Court is of the considered opinion that rejection of the
petitioner seeking grant of statutory bail is justified
though not the order of the learned Special Judge is not
happily worded."
11. Where as in case of Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs.
state of Assam1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
period of detention of the accused person in custody under
Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C., would be ninety days
for the (i) offences punishable with death, (ii) offences
punishable with imprisonment for life; and (iii) offences
punishable with imprisonment for a term "not less than 10
years" which has been interpreted to mean "imprisonment
for 10 years or more" and for rest of the offences including
2017 (15) SCC 67
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8560
HC-KAR
the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term up
to ten years, it would be of sixty days.
12. In the case on hand, petitioner/accused is
facing trial for offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act
and other offences. The punishment for offence punishable
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, is for a term
which shall not be less than twenty years or imprisonment
for life, which may extend to imprisonment for life and
also shall be liable to fine. Therefore, the period of
detention of the accused person in the custody under
Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C., and Section 187(3)
read with Section 193(2) of the BNSS, it would be ninety
days.
13. In view of the above, the impugned order
passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any
illegalities, perversities and irregularity warranting
interference by this Court, in exercise of revisional
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8560
HC-KAR
jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, I proceeds to pass
the following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM, AC /CT-AN
