Shri Neev Jain vs State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 2797 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2797 Kant
Judgement Date : 1 April, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri Neev Jain vs State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                             -1-
                                                           NC: 2026:KHC:17892
                                                       CRL.P No. 3868 of 2026


                   HC-KAR




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                           BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                            CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3868 OF 2026
                  BETWEEN:

                  SHRI NEEV JAIN
                  S/O LATE SANJAY JAIN
                  AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
                  R/AT NO. 302, 3RD FLOOR
                  KASAVEER APARTMENT
                  S.N. PETET, BALLARI - 583 101

                  (AS PER REMAND APPLICATION)
                                                                ...PETITIONER
                  (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR R. P., ADVOCATE)

                  AND:

                     STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by  BY VISHWESHWARAPURAM POLICE STATION
SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY           REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: High Court (HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU)
of Karnataka

                                                               ...RESPONDENT
                  (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)

                         THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) BY
                  THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
                  HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE HIM ON
                  BAIL       IN     CR.NO.21/2026        REGISTERED       BY
                               -2-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC:17892
                                          CRL.P No. 3868 of 2026


HC-KAR




VISHWESHWARAPURAM P.S., BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 69 OF BNS, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE
COURT OF THE 37th ACMM COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE.THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
SPECIAL   JUDGE,      BANGALORE     HAS    REJECTED   THE   BAIL
PETITION ON 03.03.2026 IN CRL.MISC.NO.1855/2026.COPY
SERVED     ON    SPP.POST     CRL.P       BEFORE   COURT    FOR
ORDERS.(VIDE R(J) MEMO NO.138/2025, DATED 29.01.2026) -
SOPVA090326

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                         ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Chandrashekar R.P., learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP

appearing for the respondent-State and have perused the

material on record.

2. The petitioner is before the Court seeking his

release on grant of bail for it having rejected before the Court

of Session in Crime No.21/2026 for offence punishable under

NC: 2026:KHC:17892

HC-KAR

Section 69 of the BNS, 2023. The petitioner is the accused. The

de facto complainant and the petitioner meet on a social media

platform - Instagram. They develop friendship, friendship

blossoms into relationship, relationship into the two getting

physical. The de facto complainant after about six months of

the relationship of the two, registers a complaint on 04.01.2026

alleging that the petitioner has indulged in physical relationship

with the complainant on the pretext of marriage and there is

breach of promise of marriage. Therefore, the offence under

section 69 of the BNS sprang. Immediately after the

registration of the crime on 14.02.2026, it transpires that the

petitioner has been taken into custody on 17.02.2026 and

remains in custody, even today, which is now close to 50 days.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the acts between the petitioner and de facto

complainant were all consensual and go on for a period of six

months after they became friends or fell in love which

continued for a period of six months.

NC: 2026:KHC:17892

HC-KAR

4. The issue is not with regard to the merit of the

claim of the de facto complainant or the accused. The issue is

the petitioner remains in custody for the last 45 days for an

offence which were all acts between the petitioner and the

complainant on consensus. The Apex Court in the case of

AMOL BHAGWAN NEHUL V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,

reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230, considers this aspect

and holds that for consensual acts between the two or a

breakup of a relationship would not amount to a rape under

section 376 of the IPC.

5. If the findings of the Apex Court is paraphrased to

the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the petitioner does

become entitled to be set at liberty for grant of bail as

consensual acts cannot lead the petitioner to be in prison for 45

days now.

6. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed with

the petitioner being granted bail on certain stringent conditions.

NC: 2026:KHC:17892

HC-KAR

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in

connection with Crime No.21/2025 registered

before Vishweshwarapuram Police Station,

Bengaluru City, for offences punishable under

Section 69 of BNS, 2023, subject to the

following conditions: