[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Satish S/O Yerriswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1113
CRL.P No. 105292 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 105292 OF 2025
(439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SATISH S/O YERRISWAMY
AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. TECHNICIAN,
R/O. HOSADAROJI VILLAGE,
TQ. SANDUR, BALLARI 583103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KUDUTHINI POLICE,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH 580011.
2. JIVARATNAM
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSA DAROJI VILLAGE,
BANDIHARLAPUR POST,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, 583231
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
(FATHER OF VICTIM)
Dharwad Bench.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. NIRMALA DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.B. KANAVI,
ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF
BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND GRANT BAIL,
ORDERING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN
KUDUTHINI P.S CRIME NO. 126/2025 REGISTERED ON 10.09.2025,
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC.4, 5 (L) AND 6 OF POCSO
ACT AND SEC. 376 (2) (n), 506, 376 (3), 313, 366 (A) OF IPC
PENDING O THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
F.T.S.C.-I AT BALLARI IN SPL. C. NO. 1353/2025, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1113
CRL.P No. 105292 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL 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.Girish Bhat, for petitioner, learned High
Court Government Pleader Sri.P.N.Hatti, for respondent No.1 and
Smt.Nirmala Doddamani for Sri.M.B.Kanavi, for respondent No.2.
2. The accused in Special Case No.1353/2025 is the
petitioner in this petition seeking the following relief:
"Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays
that,
This Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the petition and
grant of bail, ordering to release the petitioner/accused on
bail in Kuduthini P.S Crime No.126/2025 registered on
10.09.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections.4, 5
(l) and 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 376(3),
313, 366(a) of IPC pending o the file of Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-I, at Ballari in Spl.C.No.1353/2025,
in the interest of justice."
3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the
present petition are as under:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1113
HC-KAR
Based on the complaint lodged by the father of the victim
girl with Kuduthini Police Station, Ballari District, a case came to
be registered for the offences under Sections 4,6 and 5(l) of the
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506, 313, 366(A) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
4. Police after thorough investigation filed the charge
sheet against the petitioner in respect of aforesaid offences. The
column No.17 of the charge sheet would reveal that the victim
girl was enticed with a promise of marriage and there was a
forcible sexual intercourse by the petitioner in the precincts of
the prayer hall of the church. She became pregnant with
continuous physical relationship and there was an abortion.
Thereafter, the victim girl was taken to Bengaluru in the guise of
counseling and thereafter taken to Mysuru, where in a hotel
lodge she was again subjected to forcible sexual intercourse.
5. Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain the bail was
turned down by the learned Special Judge and thereafter
petitioner is before this Court.
6. Sri.Girish Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner,
reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contented that
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1113
HC-KAR
there is a delay of more than one and a half years in lodging the
complaint, which exposes the hollowness in the complaint
averments and sought for grant of bail.
7. He would further contend that, as per the complaint
averments itself, there was a promise for marriage between the
petitioner and the victim girl and when it did not materialize, a
belated complaint came to be lodged as an afterthought only to
coerce the petitioner to marry the victim girl and therefore
sought for grant of bail.
8. Per contra, Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and
Smt.Nirmala Doddamani, for Sri.M.B.Kanavi, appearing for
second respondent opposed the bail grounds.
9. Sri.P.N.Hatti, would further contend that victim was
admittedly minor at the time of first incident and she became
pregnant and therefore, even assuming that there is any
consensus between the petitioner and the victim girl, same
cannot be a legal consent and therefore the grounds urged in the
petition are not sufficient for grant of bail.
10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1113
HC-KAR
11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
established that the incident has taken place and victim was
aged 14 years.
12. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Independent Thought vs. Union of India and
another1, the consent, if any, cannot be countenanced in law as
it is not a legal consent.
13. Therefore, mere delay in lodging the complaint would
not efface criminality in a serious offence.
14. At the most, the fact of lodging a belated complaint is
a defence that is available to the accused to be canvassed before
the trial Court during the trial.
15. Taking note of the fact that, the victim became
pregnant and her pregnancy was aborted by the petitioner, again
in the guise of promising to marry and thereafter taking the
victim girl to Bengaluru in the guise of counselling and then took
her to Mysuru, where she was subjected to forcible sexual
intercourse would make it clear that prima facie the petitioner is
(2017) 10 SCC 800
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1113
HC-KAR
not entitled to any discretionary relief for grant of bail under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
16. Accordingly, the following order:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
RHR/- CT:CMU
LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 12
