Hullesh S/O Mahadevappa Kojji Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 483 OF BNSS 2023, SEEKING TO ENLARGE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.253/2022 GANGAVATHI RURAL P.S.) FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 376, 506 OF IPC. SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENES ACT 2012 IN CASE NO. SPL.SC.POCSO NO. 62/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-1, KOPPAL.

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4744 CRL.P No. 100920 of 2025

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

Heard Smt.Reshma Madiwalar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. Respondent No.2 served with the notice, remained absent.

¶26

Petition is filed under Section 439 of

¶27

Cr.P.C./483 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita with a successive bail request.

¶28

Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the petition are as under:

¶29

3.1. Mother of the victim girl lodged a complaint on 12.09.2022 with Gangavathi Rural Police which was registered in Crime No.253/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 363 and 376 of IPC and Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4744 CRL.P No. 100920 of 2025

¶31

3.2. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal

¶32

that on 12.09.2022 at about 8.30 a.m., complaint came to be lodged with the police by contending that daughter of the complainant (victim girl) was aged about 16 years and was studying in High School in 10^th standard and she used to visit the school from her village. On 07.09.2022 at about 8.30 a.m., as usual she left her house and in the evening, she did not return to the house. Being anxious, complainant and her husband went to the school and enquired. Thereafter, searched for the victim girl in the relatives and friends house and they were unsuccessful in tracing her. Next day they went to Kushtagi, Nidashesi and other places but their efforts to search the victim girl failed.

¶33

3.3. On 09.09.2022, they visited Gangavathi and in the bus stand, they were able to spot her and enquired her. She then revealed that the petitioner cajoled her and took her to Vanabhadreshawaragudda on a motorcycle and thereafter, had a forcible sexual intercourse with her. He

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4744 CRL.P No. 100920 of 2025

¶35

had also fed her with food fetching the same from the hotel and kept her in the said gudda on 07.09.2022 and 08.09.2022. She also revealed that on 09.09.2022, he brought her back to the said gudda in a motorcycle and left her in Gangavathi bus stand.

¶36

Based on the said revelation, complaint came to be lodged on 12.09.2022.

¶37

After registration the case, pursuant to the complaint, police investigated the matter inter alia apprehended the petitioner and filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.

¶38

Complainant, victim girl and panch witnesses

¶39

have already been examined before the Court and all of them have supported the case of the prosecution in toto .

¶40

Victim girl has deposed in detail with graphic

¶41

details as to what transpired on 07.09.2022, 08.09.2022 and till her return to Gangavathi bus stand on 09.09.2022.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4744 CRL.P No. 100920 of 2025

¶43

There is a specific averment in her deposition about the forcible sexual intercourse that the accused had with her.

¶44

Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an

¶45

order of grant of bail is turned out by the learned Special Judge.

¶46

Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court, in

¶47

this petition seeking grant of bail.

¶48

Smt.Reshma Madiwalar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that victim is a consenting party and nobody would expect that victim would stay on Vanabhadreshawaragudda for a period of two days without informing anybody and there was no impediment for the victim girl to escape away from the place where she has been allegedly kept by the accused and fact that she did not make any attempt to come over to her house from Vanabhadreshawaragudda or sought for help from somebody else, itself shows that it is a consensual act and therefore, sought for grant of bail.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4744 CRL.P No. 100920 of 2025

¶50

Per contra, Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned High

¶51

Court Government Pleader would contend that theory of consent losses significance in the case on hand, inasmuch as victim is aged about 16 years and following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in several matters, consent of a minor cannot be considered as a legal consent. Therefore, sought for rejection of the bail petition.

¶52

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

¶53

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that victim girl was studying in 10^th standard as on the date of incident and she did not return to the house as usual in the evening on 07.09.2022. Efforts made by the parents of the victim girl to search her was in vain.

¶54

It is only on 09.09.2022, they were able to spot her in Gangavathi bus stand and enquired her. On enquiry, she revealed about the incident that occurred on 07.09.022 wherein accused brought a motorcycle and

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4744 CRL.P No. 100920 of 2025

¶56

intercepted her free movement and then took her to Vanabhadreshawaragudda and kept her for a period of two days i.e., on 07.09.2022 and 08.09.2022. When she was kept in the said gudda, accused said to have made forcible sexual intercourse with her.

¶57

Theory of consent put forward on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced in law having regard to the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Independent Thought v. Union of India reported in (2017) 10 SCC 800 .

¶58

Since, the trial has now progressed to a considerable extent before the Trial Court and material witnesses have already been examined before the Trial Court, expressing opinion on the merits of the matter that too while considering the successive bail request of the petitioner is totally unwarranted. Therefore, request of the petitioner cannot be acceded by exercising the special powers vested in this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4744 CRL.P No. 100920 of 2025

¶60

17. Suffice to say that material available on record

¶61

at this stage would definitely disentitle the petitioner to obtain an order of bail having regard to the presumption available to the prosecution under section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act.

¶62

18. Accordingly, the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i. Bail petition is rejected .

¶65

ii. Learned Trial Judge is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.

¶66

SD/(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶67

KAV CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6

Hullesh S/O Mahadevappa Kojji v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hullesh S/O Mahadevappa Kojji v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaraj S/O Late Mallayya Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Durgappa S/O. Somaling Vaddar, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shrinidhi S/O Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Mailarappa S/O Fakirappa Chikkumbi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Danish Khazi Vs State

Shri Achut S/O Hanumant Nayak Vs Shri Anjaneya Finance and Investment Corporation