K Lokesha Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MOODABIDRE POLICE STATION MOODABIDRE TALUK D.K. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.82/2026 REGISTERED BY THE MOODABIDRE P.S. MOODABIDRE TALUK D.K FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 74 OF BNS 2023 PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT MOODABIDRE, MANGALORE.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:34173 CRL.P No. 9589 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER

¶22

Accused in Crime No.82 of 2026 registered by

¶23

Moodabidre Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District for offence punishable under Section 74 of BNS 2023 is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP on behalf of respondent.

¶25

FIR in Crime No.82 of 2026 was registered by Moodabidre Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District against the petitioner herein, based on the first information dated 12.06.2026, received from the victim girl aged about 19 years. In the said case, petitioner was arrested on 13.06.2026 and the learned Magistrate before whom he was produced had granted him interim bail. Subsequently, the bail petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 17.06.2026 and therefore he had

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:34173 CRL.P No. 9589 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

approached the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.537 of 2026 which was rejected on 25.06.2026. It is under these circumstances, he is before this Court.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after the petitioner was granted interim bail considering the nature of allegations found in the first information, mother of the alleged victim had submitted a false complaint before the police alleging that an attempt was made to tamper the material witnesses. Therefore, the Courts below have rejected the bail application of the petitioner, who is a married man having no criminal antecedents. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶31

Per contra, learned HCGP, who has opposed the petition, submits that, in the event the petitioner is enlarged on bail, the chances of he tampering with the material charge sheet witnesses cannot be ruled out. Investigation of the case is under progress. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34173 CRL.P No. 9589 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

In the first information dated 12.06.2026 submitted

¶35

by the alleged victim, she has stated that petitioner is acquainted to her and he used to normally drop her in his motorbike. On 12.06.2026 also She had gone along with him in his motorbike. But instead of stopping the motorbike near her house, he had allegedly taken her to his under construction residential building and inside the said building, he allegedly had touched her waist and chest inappropriately.

¶36

The petitioner, who was arrested in the present case on 13.06.2026, was granted interim bail by the learned Magistrate, taking into consideration the nature of allegations found against him. It appears that subsequently mother of the alleged victim had approached the police and submitted a complaint stating that some persons had approached her on behalf of the petitioner requesting her to withdraw the criminal case registered against the petitioner. Based on the said complaint, the police have not registered any FIR against the persons, who are named in the said complaint.

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34173 CRL.P No. 9589 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Undisputedly, petitioner had not approached the mother of the victim girl or the victim girl. The maximum punishment for the alleged offence is imprisonment for a period of five years. Petitioner is in custody in the present case from 17.06.2026 onwards. Major portion of the investigation is already completed. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that by imposing appropriate conditions, the petitioner's prayer for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively.

¶40

9. Accordingly, the following:-

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Criminal petition is allowed.

¶43

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.82 of 2026 registered by Moodabidre Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District for offence punishable under Section 74 of BNS 2023, subject to the following conditions:-

¶44

a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:34173 CRL.P No. 9589 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

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;

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶52

NMS

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

K Lokesha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Lokesha 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

Smt Rozi @ Mathadevi Vs State by Karnataka

Sri. Shashidhar Vs State of Karnataka

Union of India Vs R Pranay Jain

Shri Shakeel Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Ashique Kaniyan Kandi Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghavendra M a Vs the State of Karnataka