Karnataka High Court
Smt Sunita vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5948
CRL.P No. 201379 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201379 OF 2025 (528 OF BNSS
R/W ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUNITA
W/O SANJEEVKUMAR RATHOD,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK,
R/O GOLA (B) THANDA,
TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RENUKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH THROUGH NARONA POLICE STATION, NARONA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
2. GORAKNATH
S/O DAKU NAYAK CHAVAN,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O GOLA (B) THANDA,
TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI-585314.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI VISHAL PRATAP SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5948
CRL.P No. 201379 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C.(OLD) UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH ORDER OF GRANTING BAIL
TO RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 18.08.2025 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
FTSC-I SPL COURT FOR POCSO CASES AT KALABURAGI IN SPL
C (POCSO) NO.14/2025 AT ANNEXURE-E CONSEQUENTLY
REMAND THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO JUDICIAL CUSTODY
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
This petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking
to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge in Special Case (POCSO) No.14/2025, whereby
respondent No.2/accused has been enlarged on bail in
respect of offences punishable under Sections 332B,
351(2), 64(2), 64(2)(m), and 65(1) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS, 2023') read with
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5948
HC-KAR
Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act').
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner,
reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, would
contend that the learned Sessions Judge has committed a
serious error in granting bail to the accused by placing
undue reliance on the date of birth reflected in the
Aadhaar Card, which, according to the prosecution, does
not represent the true age of the accused. Referring to
the charge sheet materials, the learned counsel submits
that the accused is in fact aged 67 years, whereas the
learned Sessions Judge, misquoting the age as reflected in
the Aadhaar Card, has proceeded on the assumption that
the accused is 79 years of age and has granted bail on
medical and compassionate grounds. It is further urged
that the offences alleged are of a heinous and grave
nature involving sexual assault on a child victim and
therefore, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have
exercised discretion in favour of the accused. The learned
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5948
HC-KAR
counsel submits that the order of bail suffers from
perversity, non-application of mind, and disregard of
settled legal principles governing grant of bail in serious
offences under the POCSO Act.
3. In support of the said contention, reliance is
placed on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Devibai v. State of Karnataka1, wherein it was
held that in the event of gross irregularity or patent
illegality in the exercise of discretion while granting bail,
this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and inherent
powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, can intervene
and set aside such an order of bail.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2/accused, as well as the learned High
Court Government Pleader representing respondent
No.1/State, have opposed the petition contending that the
Crl.P.No.200940/2025-DD 24.06.2025
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5948
HC-KAR
present proceedings are not maintainable under Section
528 of BNSS, 2023. It is argued that the cancellation of
bail is an independent proceeding governed by established
legal principles, and that supervisory jurisdiction under
Articles 226 and 227 cannot ordinarily be invoked to
review or annul a discretionary order of bail, unless there
is clear evidence of malafide exercise of power, patent
perversity, or total absence of judicial reasoning. It is
therefore submitted that the order of the Sessions Court
does not call for interference.
5. Having heard the learned counsels for the
respective parties and having perused the records, this
Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the
legality and propriety of the order granting bail. It is
evident from the impugned order that the learned
Sessions Judge has adverted to the medical records and
age-related ailments of the accused and, relying upon the
date of birth reflected in the Aadhaar Card, has concluded
that the accused is a person of advanced age. The learned
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5948
HC-KAR
Sessions Judge, while exercising discretion under the bail
jurisdiction, has observed that the accused, being aged
around 79 years and suffering from age-related health
complications, merits enlargement on bail. The order
further indicates that the trial court took note of the stage
of trial, the nature of medical evidence, and the health
condition of the accused, before granting bail.
6. On close and careful examination of the
impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that
the learned Sessions Judge has exercised judicial
discretion in a reasoned manner. The Sessions Court has
not ignored any material fact nor has it misdirected itself
in law while considering the bail application. Although the
petitioner has vehemently contended that the order suffers
from perversity and illegality, this Court finds no such
error apparent on the face of the record warranting
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
or Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. The judgment relied upon
by the petitioner in Devibai (supra) does not advance the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5948
HC-KAR
petitioner's case; on the contrary, it reiterates that the
Court which granted bail is best placed to consider its
cancellation, if warranted by subsequent events or
violation of bail conditions.
7. Be that as it may, this Court finds that the
order granting bail does not suffer from any manifest
error, perversity, or arbitrariness so as to warrant
interference in the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this
Court.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petition is devoid of merits and
does not call for interference. Accordingly, the petition
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
SRT
CT:SI
