Noor Hussain Vs State of Karnataka by

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION TUMAKURU, TUMAKURU - 572 102 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

RAVIKUMAR S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O GEDDALAHALLI MAIN ROAD IN FRONT OF URDU SCHOOL 4TH CROSS, UPPARAHALLI TUMAKURU-572 102.

¶14

&RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:20617 CRL.A No. 284 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 03.02.2026 IN CRL.MISC.NO.76/2026 AND ENLARGE HIM ON REGULAR BAIL IN CR.NO.4/2026 REGISTERED BY THE WOMEN P.S, TUMAKURU AGAINST THE APPELLANT, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 137(2),64 OF BNS, 2023, U/S 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, U/S 9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006, U/S 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC-I) AT TUMAKURU.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

The appellant, who is an accused in Crime No.4/2026 is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.Pet.No.76/2026 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTSC-I), Tumakuru by which his application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail has been dismissed.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that upon a compliant filed by respondent No.2 alleging that on 02.01.2026 at about 10.30 a.m., her daughter the victim girl who was aged 17 years 7 months had gone to her college as usual but did not

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20617 CRL.A No. 284 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

return home. As such, enquiry and search was made at all known places. That upon the suspicion of the accused/appellant herein and the victim being in love with each other, phone calls were made on the mobile phone of the accused, which was switched off. It is further alleged that victim belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Community. As such, sought for the police intervention.

¶28

That an FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Section 137(2), 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. After investigation the charge sheet has been filed alleging that the victim girl and the accused got married at Seebi Narasimhaswamy temple on 06.05.2024. Thereafter, accused had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim. Later, the victim had got pregnant and delivered a female baby on 02.01.2026 at Chalukya Hospital. It is under these circumstances that a statement of the victim was also

¶29

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20617 CRL.A No. 284 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, wherein she has deposed having married the accused and giving birth to a girl child.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the

¶33

contents of the complaint and the charge sheet submits that until birth of the girl child, there was no issue. In fact, the accused and the defacto complainant are the resident of the same locality working on the daily wage basis and they were acquainted with each other for a long time. It is only when the victim girl gave birth to a child, a complaint with allegation of she being aged 17 years 7 months has been filed. Further, learned counsel submits that the accused has been in confinement since 06.01.2026. He submits that this is a case of love affair and the marriage between the accused and the victim was solemnized with the consent of the family members and there is no commission of any offence. Hence, seeks for allowing the appeal and to grant bail.

¶34

Despite service of notice, there is no representation by respondent No.2 - defacto complainant.

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20617 CRL.A No. 284 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Learned High Court Government Pleader does not

¶38

dispute that the complaint came to be filed only upon the victim girl giving birth to the girl child. However, insists that since the age of the victim girl is stated to be 17 years 7 months at the time of incident, the offences alleged have been committed by the accused disentitling him for the regular bail.

¶39

Heard. Perused the records.

¶40

Though, the defacto complainant indicates that the

¶41

victim was pursuing her studies and on 02.01.2026 she left home as usual to her college at 10.30 a.m. but did not return and upon search made by the defacto complainant at all the known places, it was learnt that she was in love with the accused, it the said averments are not consistent with the charge sheet material.

¶42

The charge sheet materials indicate that on the

¶43

very day i.e. , on 02.01.2026, victim had given birth to a girl child at Chalukya Hospital. If the victim girl had given birth to a girl child on 02.01.2026 instant, it becomes improbable that the defacto complainant was not aware of victim being 9 months

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:20617 CRL.A No. 284 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

pregnant as on the date when she allegedly left the home on 02.01.2026. The age of the victim as on the date of complaint is shown to be 17 years 7 months, which requires to be established during the trial.

¶48

Further, upon the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the accused and the father of the victim working together and residing in the same locality, indicate that the families were aware of marriage between the victim and the accused and she being pregnant and giving birth to the child. As rightly pointed out, it could be a case of information given at the time of birth of the baby suspecting her age to be below 18 years.

¶49

In these peculiar facts, it should matter that this Court deems it appropriate to allow the appeal granting bail to the accused.

¶50

Accordingly, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

1. Criminal appeal is allowed ;

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:20617 CRL.A No. 284 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

The impugned order dated 03.02.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.Pet.No.76/2026 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTSC-I), Tumakuru, is set aside.

¶57

The accused/appellant is enlarged on bail for offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 subject to the following conditions;

¶58

(a) Accused/Appellant shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶59

(b) Accused/Appellant shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons.

¶60

(c) Accused/Appellant shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶61

(d) Accused/Appellant shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:20617 CRL.A No. 284 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

(e) Accused/Appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶65

(f) Communicate copy of this order to the trial Court and concerned Prison authorities forthwith.

¶66

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶67

RB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Noor Hussain v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noor Hussain v. State of Karnataka by

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

Sri S Karunagaran Vs State by

Sri.Kugan P Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Nagesha M C Vs the State of Karnataka

B Venkataravanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Madan Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Padmavathi Marketing Vs Dayananda Murthy K N