Mehaboobasab S/O Bavasab Hongal Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN NARAGUND PS CRIME NO.197/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE GADAG, IN S.C.NO.36/2025 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 137(2), 64(2)(m), 49, 239, 249(b), R/W. 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS), 2023, AND SECTIONS 4, 6 AND 17(1) OF POCSO ACT-2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

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

¶23

2 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8806 CRL.P No. 102210 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶28

Heard Sri Sadik Kanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kirtilata Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State.

¶29

Notice issued to respondent No.2 is duly served and she remained absent.

¶30

This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short) (under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to grant bail in S.C.No.36/2025 pending on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag (Arising out of Crime No.197/2024 of Naragund Police Station.)

¶31

Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as under:

¶32

On 14.12.2024, the first informant lodged a complaint alleging that her minor daughter aged about 17 years,

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8806 CRL.P No. 102210 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

studying at KES College at Konnur did not return from the College. Hence, a missing complaint was registered. During the course of investigation, the police secured the victim and also arrested accused. Later the victim girl had given information in respect of accused that he has kidnapped her, wrongfully confined her in a shed at Binmangala in Bengaluru, where the accused committed aggravated and penetrative assault on her. On the basis of the said statement, the Investigating Officer incorporated Section 64(2)(m) and 49 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyana Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS” for short) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act” for short).

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

¶37

the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offences. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that there is no evidence of external genital organ injury and hymen remains intact and the victim has not stated anything before the Magistrate while recording

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8806 CRL.P No. 102210 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he prayed to grant bail in favour of the petitioner.

¶41

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. The medical report clearly indicates that the victim was habituated to acts like sexual intercourse. The victim was a minor aged about 17 years and 5 months at the time of alleged offence. If the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamer the prosecution witnesses and thereby hamper the fair conduct of the trial. Accordingly, she prayed for rejection of the petition.

¶42

The charge sheet material clearly indicates that, the petitioner kidnapped the victim, took her to various places and committed aggravated and penetrative sexual assault on her at various places. As per the Statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 31.12.2024, nowhere, she stated that the accused kidnapped her and committed aggravated and penetrative sexual assault on her. On the contrary, she has stated that, she voluntarily left

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8806 CRL.P No. 102210 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the house and rounded with the accused and she has an intention to marry the petitioner.

¶46

On perusal of the medical records, the doctor has opined that, there is no evidence of recent sexual act. However, the victim appears to be habituated to acts like intercourse. The medical report further reveals that, hymen is intact. In the present case, though there are allegations of aggravated and penetrative sexual assault committed on victim, by the petitioner, but the victim herself has not made any such allegations against the accused and the allegations are not supported by the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and medical report.

¶47

Considering the nature and gravity of the offences, antecedents, character of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for bail. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The criminal petition is hereby allowed .

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8806 CRL.P No. 102210 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The petitioner – accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in S.C.No.36/2025 pending on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag on the following conditions:

¶54

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶55

(ii) The petitioner shall not threaten the victim or her family members.

¶56

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court regularly.

¶57

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence during pendency of the trial, including any offence similar to the one alleged.

¶58

Violation of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail before the appropriate Court in accordance with law.

¶59

Note : The above observation made in this petition is only for the purpose of disposal of this petition

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶62

EM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Mehaboobasab S/O Bavasab Hongal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehaboobasab S/O Bavasab Hongal 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Bari S/O. Abdul Razak Mulla Vs State of Karnataka

Ajan S/O Malikjan Gadiwale Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Sanju S/O Parasu Karande Vs the State of Karnataka

Praveen S/O Basappa Mudlingannavar Meti Vs the State of Karnataka

Sadashiv S/O. Kallappa Uppar Vs the State of Karnataka

Kumarswamy S/O Gangadharayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka