Keshava B S Vs State by Sagar Rural P S

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.102/2026 (IN CRIME NO.7/2026) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 64 (2) (f) (m), 351 (2), 96, 238 OF BNS, 2023 AND SECTIONS 6 AND 15 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 66 (E) OF IT ACT 2000 OF THE RESPONDENT SAGARA RURAL POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC II AT SHIVAMOGGA.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Accused in Special Case No.102/2026 pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC1, Shivamogga, arising out of Crime No.7/2026 registered by Sagar Rural Police Station, Shivamogga for the offences punishable under Section 64 (2) (f) (m), 351 (2), 96, 238 of BNS, 2023, under Sections 6 and 15 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 66(E) of the Information

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:32505 CRL.P No. 6865 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Technology Act, 2000, is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 seeking regular bail.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent No.1 / State. Respondent No.2 who is served in the matter, has remained unrepresented before this Court.

¶31

FIR in the present case was registered against

¶32

the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, based on the first information dated 10.01.2026 received from the victim girl aged 17 years 7 months as on the said date. During the course of investigation, the petitioner herein was arrested on 11.01.2026 and remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against him for the aforesaid offences. His bail application filed before the trial Court in Special Case No.102/2026 was rejected on 22.04.2026. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:32505 CRL.P No. 6865 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶37

the petitioner and the victim are in love. The petitioner aged 20 years, has no criminal antecedent and he is a

¶38

student pursuing his final year B.A. Degree course. The investigation of the case has been completed and the trial is yet to commence. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

¶39

Per contra , learned Additional State Public Prosecutor who has opposed the petition submits that the victim is a minor and she has made allegations against the petitioner of having committed penetrative sexual assault

¶40

on her. Therefore, the alleged offences clearly gets attracted as against the petitioner. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶41

Perusal of the first information as well as the

¶42

charge sheet filed in the present case would go to show that the petitioner aged 20 years, who was pursuing his final year BA Degree course and the victim girl aged 17

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32505 CRL.P No. 6865 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

years 6 months who was pursuing her II year PUC wherein

¶46

love. It appears that they were in constant touch for the last one and a half years, prior to registration of the FIR and on two occasions, the petitioner had taken the victim girl on his motorbike to some plantation and had sexual intercourse with her. It is only after her uncle saw the victim, when the victim girl was returning from the said plantation on the second occasion, the first information was registered against the petitioner. The victim girl aged 17 years 6 months had all the worldly knowledge of the consequences of the act committed by her. Investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet is filed. Petitioner is 20 years old and he is said to be a student pursuing his final year BA Degree course. His continued detention in jail amongst hardcore criminals is likely to have an adverse impact on his future career. It is trite that an accused cannot be detained in custody as a preventive or precautionary measure.

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:32505 CRL.P No. 6865 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively subject to appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the following :

¶50

O R D E R

¶51

The criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Special Case No.102/2026 pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Shivamogga, arising out of Crime No.7/2026 registered by Sagar Rural Police Station, Shivamogga for the offences punishable under Section 64 (2) (f) (m), 351 (2), 96, 238 of BNS, 2023, under Sections 6 and 15 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, subject to the following conditions:

¶52

a) Petitioner 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;

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:32505 CRL.P No. 6865 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶57

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶58

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶59

e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶60

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶61

AMM

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

Keshava B S v. State by Sagar Rural P S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshava B S v. State by Sagar Rural P S

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

Shreedhara T D Vs the State Karnataka

Sadiq Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Ateeq @ Tinker Addu Vs State of Karnataka

Ayyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Gopinath Nagar Anthal Vs State by

Siddaraju Vs State by