Karnataka High Court
Shivanand S/O Basappa Dyavanur vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4154
CRL.P No. 100142 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100142 OF 2025
(439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHIVANAND S/O. BASAPPA DYAVANUR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. UGGINKERI VILLAGE, TQ. KALAGHATAGI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580001,
NOW AT CENTRAL PRISON, DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GANESH RAIBAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KALAGATAGI POLICE STATION,
R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally
signed by V
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
N BADIGER
VN
BADIGER Date:
2025.03.05
15:28:53
+0530 2. SMT.SAVITA W/O. MAHADEVAPPA BEERANAVAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC.COOLIE,
R/O. UGGIKERI, TQ. KALAGHATAGI,
DIST. DHARWAD-581204.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF
BNSS 2023, SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON
BAIL IN KALAGHATAGI P.S. CRIME NO.281/2024, ON THE FILE OF
SPECIAL COURT AND 2ND ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DHARWAD, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 64 OF BNSS AND UNDER SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4154
CRL.P No. 100142 of 2025
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri.Ganesh Raibagi, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and
Sri.Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
2. Petition is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the
BNSS') with following prayer:
For the reasons stated above this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in
Kalaghatai PS crime No.281/2024 on the file of the Special
Court and 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Dharwad, registered for the offence punishable under Section
64 of the BNSS and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act in the
ends of justice."
3. Facts in brief which are at most necessary for
disposal of the bail petition are as under:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4154
The mother of the victim girl lodged a complaint with
Kalaghatagi Police Station on 28.11.2024 which was
registered in crime No.281/2024 for the offence
punishable under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (for short, 'the BNS) and Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for
short, 'the POCSO Act').
4. The gist of the complaint averments reveals
that the accused being a resident of Ugginkeri village,
Kalaghatagi taluk, is said to have had forcible sexual
intercourse on 24.11.2024, taking advantage of the
loneliness of the victim girl in her house. Police, after
receipt of the complaint, rescued the victim girl and
registered the case in Crime No.281/2024. The victim girl
was taken to the hospital for medical examination.
Thereafter, a detailed investigation was conducted, and a
charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner herein
for the aforesaid offences.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4154
5. Learned special judge has taken cognizance and
the matter is now pending. Learned special judge by order
dated 24.12.2024 rejected the prayer for grant of bail.
6. Bing aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before
this Court.
7. Sri.Ganesh Raibagi, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the
bail petition, vehemently contended that the material
collected by the investigation agency in the form of a
charge sheet is hardly sufficient to conclude the offences
alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner
should be enlarged on bail, taking note of the fact that the
charge sheet is now filed and the continuation of the
petitioner/accused in judicial custody is no longer
warranted.
8. Per contra, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State
and Sri.Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 have opposed the bail grounds by
contending that the victim girl is aged about 15 years, and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4154
material collected by the investigation agency including
the final opinion of the doctor, it is crystal clear that there
were materials that would prima facie indicate that there
was a forcible sexual intercourse.
9. The victim being aged 15 years and the
allegations are to the effect that when there was no body
in the house, the accused being aged 35 years, took the
advantage of the loneliness of the victim girl in her house
and he has committed the aforesaid offences. Therefore,
the question of granting the bail would not arise in a
matter of this nature, and sought for dismissal of the bail
petition.
10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, the
statement of the victim girl has been recorded by the
investigation officer, and her statement has been recorded
before the jurisdiction Magistrate under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4154
12. The materials collected by the investigation
agency including the medical records, would not rule out
any possibility of sexual assault on the victim girl.
13. Whether at all factual ingredients which are
required to attract the offence punishable under Section 6
of the POCSO Act, are made out in the case on hand are
not cannot, be decided by this court at this stage by
conducting a mini trial.
14. In fact, the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court and this Court have cautioned the Court
entertaining the bail petition from holding a mini trial, as
the same may prejudice the case of the parties during the
trial one way or the other.
15. Thus, resisting from holding the mini trial when
materials on record is appreciated for the limited purpose
of finding out whether the petitioner is innocent of the
offences alleged against him, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the statement of the victim girl
coupled with the medical evidence already collected by the
investigating agency would definitely disentitle the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4154
petitioner from obtaining an order of grant of bail by this
Court by resorting to the special powers vested in this
Court under Section 483 of the BNSS.
16. Thus, this Court is of the definite opinion that
materials available on record atleast at this stage, are
hardly sufficient to entertain the bail request of the
petitioner.
17. After the victim girl is examined, if there is a
positive changed circumstance, the petitioner can always
approach this court with a successive bail request.
Reserving such liberty for the petitioner, the following
order is passed.
ORDER
The bail petition is meritless and hereby rejected.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
AC
CT:PA
