Chandrashekar Vs State by Psi Ajjampura Police Station

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 (FILED U/S.482 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO GRANT THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF ARREST BY THE RESPONDENT AJJAMPURA POLICE CHIKKAMAGALURU IN FIR CRIME NO.23/2026 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 69 OF BNS 2023 PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner/accused is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.23/2026 of respondentpolice for the offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶27

Brief facts of the case:

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that, a complaint

¶29

came to be registered by the complainant stating that on 10.08.2014, she married one Shekhar, who is a resident of Ajjampura. As there was no cardinal relationship existed between the complainant and her husband, she had filed a case

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15982 CRL.P No. 3435 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

for divorce. The matter was pending for consideration. Then, on 22.02.2024, she got acquainted with the petitioner who is the resident of Hirenalluru. On 23.03.2024 around about 07.30 p.m., it is alleged that he had committed sexual intercourse on her. On the same day at about 10.00 p.m., she went to police station. However, in the police station, he pleaded and requested her that he would marry her. Consequently, she went to her house. On the following day, he went to her house and again, committed sexual intercourse on her. It is further alleged that the victim has been sexually assaulted on several occasions for the past 18 months. Further, the petitioner has instructed her that she should get divorce from her first husband. Believing his version, she divorced her first husband on 03.03.2025. However, in the meantime, the petitioner had not turned up to the house of the complainant for 2 months. Then, she requested the petitioner for marriage. However, he refused to marry her. Hence, the complaint.

¶33

Heard Sri.Hiremathad Maheshiah Rudrayya, learned

¶34

counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Anitha Girish N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:15982 CRL.P No. 3435 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

¶39

petitioner that, the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. The proposal made by the victim has been refused on account of some unavoidable circumstances. Merely because, the petitioner had refused to marry her, cannot be construed that the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse on several occasions on the pretext of marriage. In fact, the alleged incident of sexual intercourse had taken place on 23.03.2024. However, she obtained divorce from her first husband on 03.03.2025. The manner which the petitioner had lodged a complaint making certain allegations against the petitioner would indicate the intention of the complainant. The complainant forcing the petitioner to marry her. Therefore, she filed a false complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner is aged about 45 years and resident of Kadur Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District. He will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition.

¶40

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶41

Pleader for respondent-State vehemently submitted that, the

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15982 CRL.P No. 3435 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

petitioner on the pretext of false promise of marriage, committed sexual intercourse on several occasions and refused to marry her. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submissions, he prays to reject the petition.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the complaint. It appears from the record that the victim had applied for divorce from her first husband on 04.11.2022. During the pendency of the said petition, she got acquainted with the petitioner on 22.02.2024. It is alleged that the petitioner had made proposal for marriage and both had developed intimacy. It is alleged that he had committed sexual intercourse on her on 23.03.2024 around about 07.30 p.m. and thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner had continued till 18 months he had committed sexual intercourse on her. Later, from 03.03.2025, he did not turn up to the house of the complainant for two months and thereafter, he refused to marry her.

¶46

Having gone through the averments of the

¶47

complaint and also the other facts and circumstances of the

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:15982 CRL.P No. 3435 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case to grant him bail.

¶52

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶55

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.23/2026 of respondentpolice for the offence under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶56

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional police within a period of one month from today to execute personal bond and also to furnish surety.

¶57

(iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation till filing of the charge sheet.

¶58

(v) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:15982 CRL.P No. 3435 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

(vi) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶63

(vii) The petitioner shall not commit any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶64

In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶65

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶66

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Chandrashekar v. State by Psi Ajjampura Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekar v. State by Psi Ajjampura Police Station

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

Mr. Ashraf Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Muniyellappa Vs State of Karnataka

Charan Vs State of Karnataka

Basavanna. L Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Praveen Nayak K a @ Praveen Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chidananda v M @ Nandu Vs the State of Karnataka