Sahil Ahammad J Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C NO.206/2025, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, SHIVAMOGGA ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.144/2025 OF SAGAR TOWN P.S, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, REGISTERED FOR O/U/S 65(1), 87 OF THE BNS, 2023 AND SEC. 6 OF THE POCSO ACT, 2012.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:19825 CRL.P No.13893/2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short, 'BNSS' ) seeking for grant of regular bail by the sole accused in Crime No.144/2025 registered by Sagar Town Police Station, Shivamogga, initially for the offences punishable under Sections 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After investigation, charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 65(1) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶25

Sri.Sandesh P.Nadiger, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the aforesaid crime and he was

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19825 CRL.P No.13893/2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

apprehended by the police and he is in judicial custody from 09.05.2025. It is submitted that the jurisdictional police have filed charge sheet, hence, now the custody of the petitioner is not required. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2/victim has lodged the complaint on 08.05.2025 alleging certain acts against the petitioner and those acts are pertaining to 17.03.2025 and 16.04.2025, however, the complaint is filed on 08.05.2021 and there is no explanation for the delay. It is also submitted that the complaint averments clearly indicates that the victim and the petitioner were in love affair and they intended to marry. It is contended that the allegation in the second portion of the complaint is pertaining to some other persons that occurred on 05.05.2025 and 06.05.2025 and those persons were not arrayed as accused in the case. It is further contended that the petitioner has no antecedents with regard to the commission of crime. It is also contended that the prosecution has cited 19 witnesses in the charge sheet and from 03.11.2025 they failed to

¶29

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19825 CRL.P No.13893/2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

proceed with the trial and NBW was issued against CWs.1, 2, 18 and 19. Hence, he seeks to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶32

Per contra, Sri.Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State submits that the jurisdictional police, after investigation, filed charge sheet, which prima-facie makes out a case against the petitioner of the commission of crime alleged in the charge sheet. It is submitted that the victim has supported the case of the prosecution when her statement was recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 193 of the BNSS. It is further submitted that the victim has given the history before the doctor during the medical examination that the accused has sexually assaulted her, hence, the charged offences are heinous in nature and the punishment provided for the said offence is 20 years. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶33

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19825 CRL.P No.13893/2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶36

counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-State and perused the material available on record.

¶37

The respondent No.1-Police registered the case in Crime No.144/2025 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 65(1) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, based on the written complaint of respondent No.2victim. The perusal of the complaint at Annexure-B indicates that the petitioner-accused against the consent of the victim, has committed sexual intercourse with her. The perusal of the charge sheet material makes it very clear that the respondent No.2-victim was aged about 15 years and the accused has committed sexual intercourse on the victim against her will. The perusal of the statement recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 193 of BNSS further clarifies that the victim has

¶38

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19825 CRL.P No.13893/2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

stated that the accused has committed sexual intercourse on her without her consent and against her will. The charge sheet material also indicates that the victim is aged about 15 years as per the school records placed along with the charge sheet. The medical records produced along with the charge sheet material also indicate that the victim has narrated the incident before the doctor, which clearly shows that the accused had sexual intercourse three times with the victim without her consent at his house.

¶41

Considering the aforesaid charge sheet material, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has made out a prima-facie case against the accused for the offences alleged in the charge sheet. It is also required to be noticed that the evidence of the victim is yet to be recorded. Hence, I am of the considered view that it would not be appropriate to release the accused on bail.

¶42

7 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:19825 CRL.P No.13893/2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The contention that the prosecution has failed

¶46

to examine CWs.1, 2, 18 and 19 cannot be a ground to grant bail. The records indicate that the trial Court issued NBW against the witnesses and once the said witness are examined, it is open for the petitioner to move an application for grant of bail.

¶47

With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is

¶48

rejected .

¶49

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶50

BSR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Sahil Ahammad J v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil Ahammad J v. 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

S T Hemegowda Vs Sarojamma

Smt Kempamma Vs Sri. Swamy Alias Doreswamy

Smt Rangamma Vs Smt Ningamma

Lakshmi Prasad @ Lakshmi Prasad H C Vs the State Police

Sameer @ Abdul Sameer Vs State of Karnataka

Hari Balamurugan Vs Union of India