Dismissed¶¶58

Shivanand S/O Basappa Dyavanur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2025CRL.P/100142/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected under S.483 BNSS; S.64 BNS/BNSS with S.6 POCSO offences; charge sheet filed; Special Judge Dharwad earlier rejection 24.12.2024; victim statement under S.164 Cr.P.C.; medical evidence; no mini trial at bail stage; successive bail liberty; Karnataka HC Dharwad; NC 2025:KHC-D:4154.

What did the court decide?

The materials collected by the investigation agency, including the medical records, would not rule out any possibility of sexual assault on the victim girl. ¶¶49

Shivanand S/O Basappa Dyavanur Vs the State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 483 BNSS in Kalaghatagi P.S. Crime No.281/2024 (S.64 BNS r/w S.6 POCSO Act). +1 more

¶¶26

Court's answer

The materials collected by the investigation agency, including the medical records, would not rule out any possibility of sexual assault on the victim girl.

¶¶49

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to decide, at the bail stage and without a mini trial, whether the factual ingredients required to attract S.6 POCSO are made out, since the catena of judgments of the Apex Court and this Court cautions against holding mini trials in bail petitions.

¶¶50

Key takeaways

The statement of the victim girl coupled with the medical evidence already collected by the investigating agency disentitles the petitioner from obtaining bail under the special powers vested in the Court under Section 483 BNSS.ratio¶¶52
The materials available on record, at least at this stage, are hardly sufficient to entertain the petitioner's bail request.ratio¶¶55
Liberty reserved to the petitioner: after the victim girl is examined, he may approach the Court with a successive bail request if there is a positive changed circumstance.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench), by order dated 04.03.2025, rejected Criminal Petition No.100142 of 2025 filed under S.483 BNSS 2023 seeking bail in Kalaghatagi P.S. Crime No.281/2024 (offences under S.64 BNS and S.6 POCSO Act), where the petitioner was alleged to have committed forcible sexual intercourse on the victim on 24.11.2024 and a charge sheet stood filed; the learned Special Judge had earlier rejected bail on 24.12.2024. The Court found that the victim's statement and the medical records collected did not rule out sexual assault; it declined to test the S.6 POCSO ingredients at the bail stage, treating such exercise as a barred mini trial; held the materials insufficient to entertain bail; and reserved liberty to move a successive bail application after the victim is examined if a positive changed circumstance arises.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4154 CRL.P No. 100142 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100142 OF 2025 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHIVANAND S/O. BASAPPA DYAVANUR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. UGGINKERI VILLAGE, TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD-580001, NOW AT CENTRAL PRISON, DHARWAD.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI GANESH RAIBAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally V NBADIGER signed by VN BADIGERDate:2025.03.05 15:28:53 +0530

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KALAGATAGI POLICE STATION, R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶15

SMT.SAVITA W/O. MAHADEVAPPA BEERANAVAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC.COOLIE, R/O. UGGIKERI, TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

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 2^ND ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 64 OF BNSS AND UNDER SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4154 CRL.P No. 100142 of 2025

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶24

Heard Sri.Ganesh Raibagi, learned counsel for

¶25

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.

¶26

Petition is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) with following prayer:

¶27

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 2^nd 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.”

¶28

Facts in brief which are at most necessary for

¶29

disposal of the bail petition are as under:

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4154 CRL.P No. 100142 of 2025

¶31

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’).

¶32

The gist of the complaint averments reveals

¶33

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.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4154 CRL.P No. 100142 of 2025

¶36

Learned special judge has taken cognizance and

¶37

the matter is now pending. Learned special judge by order dated 24.12.2024 rejected the prayer for grant of bail.

¶38

Bing aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before

¶39

this Court.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4154 CRL.P No. 100142 of 2025

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶46

On such perusal of the material on record, the

¶47

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.

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4154 CRL.P No. 100142 of 2025

¶49

The materials collected by the investigation agency including the medical records, would not rule out any possibility of sexual assault on the victim girl.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

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

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4154 CRL.P No. 100142 of 2025

¶54

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

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.

¶57

ORDER

¶58

The bail petition is meritless and hereby rejected .

¶59

SD/(V.SRISHANANDA)

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

AC CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13

Shivanand S/O Basappa Dyavanur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivanand S/O Basappa Dyavanur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Ashok Premchand Shah Vs Libra Steels

Shekarappa Bhimappa Balannavar Vs Somappa S/O Mahadevappa Hebballi

State of Karnataka Vs Sri.Dayanand Gurusiddappa Huchhannavar

Sri.Raju Naik S/O Samya Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Mahesh S/O Bhaskaracharya Kanchagar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Mahesh S/O Bhaskaracharya Kanchagar Vs the State of Karnataka