Arun Kumar vs Teh State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2026

                                              -1-
                                                          NC: 2026:KHC-K:3108
                                                     CRL.P No. 200433 of 2026


                   HC-KAR



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                            BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200433 OF 2026
                                   (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI ARUN KUMAR S/O BHEEMAPPA,
                   AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                   R/O GUNAJALLI VILLAGE, RAICHUR,
                   TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584140.
                                                                ...PETITIONER

                   (BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        THROUGH THE SHO,
Digitally signed        RAICHUR WOMEN POLICE STATION,
by RAMESH               REP. BY IT'S ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
MATHAPATI               HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH          KALABURAGI BENCH-585102.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   2.   VICTIM MINOR REPRESENTED BY
                        HER NATURAL MOTHER,
                        SMT. NAGAMMA W/O ERAPPA,
                        AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                        OCCU: COOLIE -WORK
                        R/O GUNJALLI VILLAGE, RAICHUR,
                        TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584140.
                                                              ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI JAMAAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
                   R2 SERVED)
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC-K:3108
                                  CRL.P No. 200433 of 2026


HC-KAR



     THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C (OLD), 483 OF
BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS BAIL PETITION AND
THEREBY RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL
IN CRIME NO.74/2025 (SPL.C (P) NO.10/2026) PENDING ON
THE FILE OF I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 64 (376(1)(2) OF
IPC), BNS 2023 AND SEC. 6 OF POCSO ACT, REGISTERED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 RAICHUR WOMEN POLICE STATION.


     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA


                       ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section

483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for

grant of regular bail in Crime No.74/2025 (Special Case

(P) No.10/2026) of Raichur Women Police Station for the

offences punishable under Section 64 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS') and Section 6

of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act'), pending before the I

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3108

HC-KAR

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, which are as

under:

"1. That there is no prima facie evidence or reasonable grounds to suggest the Petitioner's involvement in any offence punishable by death or life imprisonment. Additionally, the prosecution has failed to provide any direct or circumstantial evidence linking the Petitioner to the alleged guilt.

2. That, the petitioner/accused No.1 is innocent. He is nothing to do with the alleged offences. The allegations are all false and far away from truth.

3. That, there is inordinate delay in lodging complaint by the so called victim. Therefore, the complaint filed being one after thought with deliberate intention to bring pressure to settle civil rights and hence petitioner is liable to be enlarged on bail.

4. It is submitted that it is undisputed that the First Informant (the alleged victim) is a major, having been in a consensual and romantic relationship with the Petitioner (Accused No. 1). The present case is a false implication, foisted not only against the Petitioner but also against his relatives (Accused Nos. 2 to 5), solely due to the Petitioner's refusal to marry

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3108

HC-KAR

the Informant. The Informant's modus operandi clearly indicates a malicious intent to implicate the Petitioner and his family members to settle personal scores.

5. That, the victim having conveniently moved with the petitioner boy, that to in public places without any objections of whatsoever nature, now only on account of refusal to marry her may not constitute any of the offence, much less the one alleged in the complaint and charge sheet.

6. Even though respondent police during the course of investigation visited the lodges allegedly used by the petitioner and victim long back, the same do not inspire trustiness as no credible material is produced. Moreover, the medical evidence collected by the prosecution does not corroborate the version of victim. Therefore, in the absence of prima-facie case, it is improper to keep the petitioner in jail for indefinite period. Further, denial of bail amounts to a pre-trial punishment which is in gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. That, in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra &Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 608 the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that there is a clear distinction between a breach of promise

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3108

HC-KAR

and a false promise. The breach of a promise cannot be equated to a false promise, and it may not constitute an offence of rape.

8. Petitioner, who has no criminal antecedents and who is aged about 25 years is in custody from 28.11.2025. The charge sheet allegations against the petitioner are required to be proved in trial. Under the said circumstances, petitioner is liable to be enlarged on bail.

9. It is submitted that, the only allegation which remains for consideration to the Court is that the petitioner/accused No. Thad knew that she is a minor and that matter has to be considered only at the time of trial. Considering the accused person is kept in judicial, taking note length of judicial custody petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

10. It is respectfully submitted that, investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed by the respondent police. There are no circumstances warranting continuance of the petitioner in custody. The apprehension in the mind of the prosecution is to be removed by enlarging the petitioner on bail on strict terms.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3108

HC-KAR

11. It is respectfully submitted that, the prosecution in all have cited 28 witnesses to be examined on its behalf. Considering the delay in concluding trial, petitioner is liable to be enlarged on bail.

12. It is submitted that the petitioner is young person aged about 25 years. He is not habitual offender. If the petitioner is kept in jail there are all possibilities of mix up with hard core criminals.

13. It is submitted that, there can be no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioner, since the petitioner owns movable & immovable properties at village Gunjalli, Tq: & Dist: Raichur and has settled family life as well as settled avocation and he is having old aged parents who are suffering from many ailments to whom the petitioner requires to care. Further, Petitioner hails from a humble background and he has deep roots in society and he own movable & immovable properties in his name. Therefore, he would not abscond if he is granted bail.

14. It is submitted that, the Petitioner undertakes that he would not temper, influence or threaten the prosecution witnesses upon his release on bail. Further, the Petitioner's side & the Complainant's side are at loggerheads so the question threatening or influencing the prosecution witnesses is far- fetched & too remote.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3108

HC-KAR

15. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner is the bread winner of the family and if the Petitioner is continued in the custody then his family would be put serious hardship.

16. The Petitioner is ready & willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed upon him for grant of bail.

17. The Petitioner is ready & willing to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court for grant of bail."

On all these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner

prays to allow this petition.

3. I have examined the material placed before this

Court. On the basis of the complaint filed by the victim,

Raichur Women Police have registered the case in Crime

No.74/2025 against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences

punishable under Section 64 read with Section 3(5) of the

BNS and Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act. During the

course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has

arrested the accused on 28.11.2025 and produced before

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3108

HC-KAR

the Court. Thereafter, they were remanded to the judicial

custody. After investigation, the Investigating Officer

submitted the chargesheet against Accused Nos.1 to 5 for

the offences under Section 64 of the BNS and Section 6 of

the POCSO Act. The accused is in judicial custody. The

petitioner/accused filed bail application before the Trial

Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.60/2026, the same

came to be rejected by the I Additional District and

Sessions Court Raichur on 05.03.2006. Hence, the

petitioner has filed this petition.

4. It is admitted fact that as on the date of filing

the complaint, the age of victim was 18 years 2 months 1

day. The FIR reveals that the alleged incident took place

on 18.09.2025. That there is a delay of more than two

months in filing the complaint. The accused is not required

for further investigation, as the Investigating Officer has

already submitted the chargesheet against the accused.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

previous antecedents of the accused and nature and

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3108

HC-KAR

gravity of the offences and also the delay in filing the

complaint, without expressing any opinion on the merits of

the case, it is just and proper to release the accused on

bail with conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in

Crime No.74/2025 (Special Case (P) No.10/2026)

registered by Raichur Women Police Station, for the

offences punishable under Section 64 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 6 of the Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, pending on

the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at

Raichur, subject to the following conditions:

a) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the I Additional District

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:3108

HC-KAR

and Sessions Judge at Raichur in Special Case No.10/2026;

b) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

c) Petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail.

d) Petitioner shall co-operate for trial.

e) The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the Trial Court.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT-BH