Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjun Muttya vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2026
1 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200414 OF 2026
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200464 OF 2026
WRIT PETITION NO.201454 OF 2026
IN CRL.P No.200414/2026
BETWEEN:
SRI.MALLIKARJUN MUTTYA
S/O LATE HANAMANT PUJARI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST,
R/O MAHAL ROZA, TQ: SHAHAPUR,
DIST: YADGIR-585323
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B. BHIMASHANKAR;
SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI;
SRI PRADEEPKUMAR AND
SRI UMAKANTH S. K., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH GOGI POLICE STATION,
R/BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
KALABURAGI-585102.
2. SRI. MALLANNA S/O UMAPATI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: CDPO SHAHAPUR,
R/O SHAHAPUR,
DIST: YADGIR-585223.
2 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
3. SRI. AMAR JAWAHAR KAMALE
S/O JAWAHAR KAMALE,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.
4. SMT. RAJASHRI KAMALE
W/O AMAR KAMALE,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O SOLAPUR, MAHARASTRA-413001.
(RESPONDENT No.3 AND 4 BEING THE FATHER AND
MOTHER ARE NATURAL GUARDIAN OF THE VICTIM GIRL)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAGADEESH B. N., ADDL. SPP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI GANESH NAIK, ADV. FOR R3 AND R4)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT REGISTERED IN
CRIME NO.0025/2026 BY THE GOGI POLICE STATION, FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 75(2) OF
BNS, 2023 AND SEC. 12 OF POCSO ACT, 2012,
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION HELD,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT YADGIR.
IN CRL.P No.200464/2026
BETWEEN:
SRI.MALLIKARJUN MUTTYA
S/O LATE HANAMANT PUJARI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST,
R/O MAHAL ROZA, TQ: SHAHAPUR,
DIST: YADGIR-585323.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B. BHIMASHANKAR AND
SRI PRADEEPKUMAR, ADVOCATES)
3 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH GOGI POLICE STATION,
R/BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
KALABURAGI-585102.
2. SRI. MALLANNA S/O UMAPATI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: CDPO SHAHAPUR,
R/O SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR-585223.
3. SRI. AMAR JAWAHAR KAMALE
S/O JAWAHAR KAMALE,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.
R/O AT POST BHANDARKAVATHE TAL SOUTH SOLAPUR,
BHANDAR KAVADE, SOLAPUR, MAHARASTRA-413221.
4. SMT. RAJASHRI HANAMANT PATIL
W/O AMAR JAWAHAR KAMALE,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BHIKAR SAROL, POALSAP OSMANABAD,
MAHARASTRA-413509.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAGADEESH B. N., ADDL. SPP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI GANESH NAIK, ADV. FOR R3 AND R4)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO RELEASE THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH THE CRIME
NO.0025/2026 BY THE GOGI POLICE STATION, FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 75(2) OF
BNS, 2023 AND SEC. 12 OF POCSO ACT,2012, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF LEARNED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
YADGIR.
4 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
IN WP No.201454/2026:
BETWEEN:
SRI.MALLIKARJUN MUTTYA
S/O LATE HANAMANT PUJARI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST,
R/O MAHAL ROZA, TQ: SHAHAPUR,
DIST: YADGIR-585323.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B. BHIMASHANKAR;
SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI AND
SRI PRADEEPKUMAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH
GOGI POLICE STATION,
R/BY HCGP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH KALABURAGI-585102.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
YADAGIR, DISTRICT YADAGIR.
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
GOGI POLICE STATION, GOGI,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADAGIR.
4. SRI. MALLANNA S/O UMAPATI,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: CDPO, SHAHAPUR
R/O SHAHAPUR,
DIST: YADGIR-585223.
5. SRI. AMAR JAWAHAR KAMALE
S/O JAWAHAR KAMALE,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,
R/O AT POST BHANDARKAVATHE TAL
SOUTH SOLAPUR,
BHANDAR KAVADE,
SOLAPUR, MAHARASTRA-413221
5 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
6. SMT. RAJASHRI HANAMANT PATIL
W/O AMAR JAWAHAR KAMALE,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BHIKAR SAROL,
POALSAP OSMANABAD,
MAHARASTRA-413509.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAGADEESH B. N., ADDL. SPP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI GANESH NAIK, ADV. FOR R5 AND R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, R/W SEC. 528 OF
BNSS, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND I) CALL
FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER,
OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE LEARNED
PRL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADAGIR WHILE PASSING
AN ORDER DEALING WITH PRE ARREST BAIL IN CRIMINAL
MISC.NO.0089/2026 DTD 09.03.2026 TO INCLUDE THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 10 OF POCSO ACT,
2012 AND TO INVESTIGATE AND COLLECT CDR OF ACCUSED,
HIS CLOSE RELATIVES, FRIENDS AND CLOSE FOLLOWERS TO
ENSURE THE ABSENCE OF TUTORING OR TAPERING AND
OTHER DIRECTIONS WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E.
II) ISSUE ANY WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THE HON'BLE
COURT IS PLEASED TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 09.04.2026, COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
6 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV ORDER
Criminal Petition No.200414/2026 is filed under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (for short, 'the BNSS, 2023') seeking the following
relief:
"Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that
Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash the FIR and
Complaint registered in Crime No.0025/2026 by the
Gogi Police Station, for the alleged offences
punishable under sections 75(2) of BNS, 2023 and
Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012, consequently quash any
further investigation held, pending on the file of
learned District and Sessions Judge at Yadgir, in the
interest of justice."
2. The facts in brief as stated in the petition are as
under:-
"That on at 08-30 PM, the complainant, Mallanna S/o
Umapati, 41 years old, Child Development Scheme
Officer, Shahapur, filed a complaint, the gist of which
is that Mr. Mallikarjun Muttya aged about 30 to 32
years old, has been found dancing with a girl who
came to his math on 19/02/2026, lifting her by the
7 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
neck and making her stand on the bed, pinching her
nose and holding the child on his lap, videos of which
are circulating on social networking sites. As per
reference-2, the District Child Protection Officer has
immediately sent us the videos and asked us to visit
the said math and submit a report. As per reference-
3, Mr. Trishul and defacto complainant CDPO, the
staff of the District Protection Office, and Mrs.
Triveni, the Zonal Supervisor, jointly visited the Math
and inquired about the child there, aged 07 years,
and the child's father, Mr. Amar Kamble, and
mother, Mrs. Rajashri Kamble of Solapur,
Maharashtra State. When we inquired about them,
they said that for the past 3 years, they have been
coming to the Mahalroja Math of Shri Mallikarjuna
Mutta in Shahapur Taluk, Yadgir District, Karnataka
State, along with their family. Accordingly, on
19/02/2026, father of victim and his wife Mrs.
Rajshri and daughter (aged about 07 years and 10
moths) and victim uncle Girish and 7-8 other people
came. That day at around 03-38 pm, when we went
to meet Mallikarjun Muttya at the Math, victim child
07-year-old went to near Mallikarjun Muttya to had
darshan. Muttya hugged our daughter lovingly. Then
we asked victim uncle to make a video and take a
photo with our Samsung mobile phone. Later, on
20/02/2026, father of victim uploaded it on my
Instagram, hoping that it would get a large number
of likes. Further the father of victim stated that the
8 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
Mallikajun Muttya did not see it in any bad sight. The
report of the said visit was given to the District Child
Protection Officer, so the District Collector has
examined it. As per reference-4, on 25/02/2026, in
the District Level Coordination Committee held under
the chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, the
Chief Executive Officers of the District Panchayat,
Superintendent of Police, Yadgir, Member Secretary,
Legal Services Authority, Yadgir, jointly viewed and
verified the videos and obtained the investigation
report of the District Child Welfare Committee,
Yadgir in relation to the said case and directed to
take appropriate action. Accordingly, as per
reference-5, when the District Child Welfare
Committee called for inquiry and spoke to the
parents and the child, the incident occurred when
the parents of the said child went to the Matha of
Shri Mallikarjun Appaji for the birthday celebration of
the child's aunt. It is apparent that the incident that
occurred in the said case was intentionally inflicted
on a minor child. Therefore, it has been directed to
register a case under the POCSO Act against the
concerned persons. Therefore, defacto complainant
have requested respondent police to register a case
against Mr. Mallikarjun Muttya, Mahalroja Taluk
Shahapur, who are involved in the case."
9 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
3. Further it is stated in the petition that the
petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a
petition in Criminal Petition No.200361/2026, the same
has been withdrawn on 03.03.2026, with liberty to
approach this Court by filing fresh petition. In the petition,
the petitioner has urged the following grounds:
"1. That petitioner is nothing to do with alleged
offence and he has been falsely implicated in the
present case with politically influenced pressure
and except bald reference, there are no
allegations constituting ingredients of neither
Section 75(2) of BNS nor Sec. 12 of POCSO.
2. The complaint itself discloses that the alleged
incident occurred in the presence of the parents
and relatives of the minor child and that the
video was recorded by the uncle of the child at
their own request. The parents of the child have
clearly stated before the competent authorities
that the petitioner had affectionately hugged the
child and there was no ill-intention or
inappropriate conduct on his part. Therefore, the
very foundation of the allegation of sexual
harassment under the POCSO Act is absent.
3. That, in order to attract the substantive offence
(section 11) for which punishment is prescribed
under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, there must
10 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
be an act amounting to sexual harassment with
sexual intent, which is a mandatory ingredient
of the offence. In the present case, neither the
complaint nor the material collected during the
preliminary inquiry discloses any act done with
sexual intent. In the absence of such essential
ingredient, continuation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioner would amount to gross
abuse of the process of law.
4. That the material placed on record clearly
reveals that the alleged interaction between the
petitioner and the minor child was a momentary
act of affection. The parents themselves
requested that a photograph and video be taken
and subsequently uploaded the same on social
media on themselves. Thus, the circumstances
clearly demonstrate that the act was neither
objectionable nor perceived as wrongful by the
parents or the child at the relevant point of
time.
5. The complaint in question is not lodged by the
alleged victim or her parents but by Respondent
No.2, a Child Development Project Officer, on a
suo motu basis after the video went viral on
social media. The FIR has therefore been
registered solely on the basis of assumptions
and public controversy rather than on any
genuine grievance from the child or her parents
11 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
just for statistical purpose to satisfice the higher
officials and overcome the political influence.
6. That during the preliminary inquiry conducted by
the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO)
and subsequently during the course of
investigation by the respondent police, the
minor victim as well as her parents, has
categorically stated that the alleged incident
occurred in their presence and also in the
presence of their relatives.
7. That parents of the victim further stated that the
interaction between the petitioner and the child
was purely affectionate in nature and that the
petitioner had no ill-intention or mens rea
whatsoever at the time of the alleged incident.
The parents themselves had requested their
relatives to record the video and photograph the
moment, and the same was later uploaded on
social media by them without perceiving any
impropriety.
8. That even as on today, the parents of the minor
victim as well as the victim herself have not
made any allegation against the petitioner till
today and they are willing to support the
petitioner in resolving the matter. They have
expressed their readiness to cooperate with the
petitioner and to support appropriate steps for
settle the issue in accordance with law, to
12 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
safeguard the better interest of child and further
for the welfare of victim. In such circumstances,
the continuation of the criminal proceedings
would serve no useful purpose and would
amount to abuse of the process of law.
9. That the Hon'ble High Court of Andra Pradesh in
reported judgment in 2025 SCC Online AP 539
has compounded the similar offences on
compromise between the petitioner and the
parents of the victim by referring the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Gian
Singh V. State of Punjab".
10. That it is a settled principle of law that where the
allegations in the FIR do not disclose the
commission of any cognizable offence, the High
Court is empowered to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of
law and to secure the ends of justice.
11. Therefore, the registration of the FIR and the
consequent investigation against the petitioner
is nothing but a misuse of the criminal process
and deserves to be quashed by this Hon'ble
Court in the interest of justice."
On all these grounds, he prays to allow this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
13 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
case of M.C. Ravikumar Vs. D.S. Velmurugan and
others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1498.
5. That on 17.03.2026, the petitioner and
respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed an application in
I.A.No.2/2026 under Section 359(2) read with Section 528
of the BNSS, 2023 along with affidavits of Mallikarjun
Muttya S/o Late Hanamant Pujari-petitioner, Amar
Jawahar Kamale-respondent No.3, the father of the victim
to compound the offences and consequently, quash the
proceedings initiated in Crime No.25/2026. Another
application in I.A.No.3/2026 is filed under Section
359(4)(a) of the BNSS, 2023 to permit respondent Nos.3
and 4, being the parents of the natural guarding of the
minor victim to compound the offences on behalf of the
minor victim in Crime No.25/2026 of Gogi Police Station,
for the offences punishable under Section 75(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS, 2023')
and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'the POCSO Act'). This
14 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
application is supported with the affidavit of Rajashri
Hanamanth Patil W/o Amar Jawahar Kamale.
6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has
filed objections on behalf of the respondent/State to the
application filed under Section 359(2) read with Section
528 of the BNSS, 2023 in which it is stated that the
application filed by the petitioner and victim's parents is
not maintainable either in law or in fact. Therefore, the
same is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is submitted
that the FIR was registered by respondent No.1 based on
the complaint filed by respondent No.2. Subsequently, the
investigation agency commenced the investigation, which
was still ongoing when this Court stayed the proceedings
by its order dated 18.03.2026. The parents of the victim
are in collusion with the petitioner and are persuading the
victim to make a statement in favour of the petitioner.
That itself indicates that the victim's parents are not
supporting the victim cause in this case. Under the
provisions of the POCSO Act, it is mandatory for any
person, who has knowledge of the offence to provide
15 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
information about the commission of the crime under the
above provisions, failing to do so, constitutes an offence
under Section 19 of the POCSO Act. In this case, the
investigation shows that the alleged video was recorded in
the presence of the victim's parents. Although the parents
of the victim were present, they did not report the
incident. Therefore, they are liable to be regarded as
accused in the present case. The offence is punishable not
only under the POCSO Act but also under the provisions of
the BNS and JJ Act. Insofar as the investigation in respect
of Crime No.25/2026 of Gogi Police Station reveals the
following:
"a. On 24-02-2026, it was observed on social media
that Mallikarjun, s/o Hanamantraya Naikodi, the
pontiff (Peethadhipathi) of Sri Yamanurappa
Mutya Matha in Mahalroja village, was seen in a
room within the Matha premises dancing with a
minor girl on a bed, lifting her by the neck,
pinching her nose, and kissing her while sitting
her on his lap. The PSI of Gogl P.S. traced the
girl's parents and summoned them to the station.
In their statement, they claimed they had been
visiting the Matha for three years and that
16 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
Mallikarjun Mutya had no ill intentions and they
had no complaint against him.
b. On 25-02-2026, the girl who was a victim was
brought before the Child Welfare Committee
(CWC), Yadgiri, for counselling, and a counselling
report was obtained.
c. On 25-02-2026 at 08:30 PM, Sri Mallanna, s/o
Umapathi, Child Development Project Officer
(CDPO), Shahapur, filed a complaint. Based on
this, a case was registered against Mallikarjun
Mutya at Gogi Police Station, Crime No 25/2026,
under Section 75(2) of BNS-2023 and Section
12 of the POCSO Act-2012.
d. On 26-02-2026, the PSI continued the
investigation, took a further statement from the
CDPO, carried out a spot Mahazar (crime scene
inspection), and issued a notice to the accused
under Section 35(3) of BNSS-2023 to appear
for investigation.
e. On 27-02-2026, CPI Shahapur took over the
investigation. The mobile phone containing the
viral video was surrendered by the girl's father
and seized. Statements from the parents and
relatives were recorded, where they stated that
during a birthday celebration for the girl's aunt at
the Matha, the accused danced with the girl,
pinched her nose, and kissed her on the lap.
17 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
f. On 28-02-2026, the PSI visited the accused's
address to serve a notice. As the accused was
unavailable, the notice was pasted on his house
and also served to his elder brother.
g. Smt. Hemavathi WPSI recorded the victim's
statement. The girl stated that while celebrating
her aunt's birthday at the Matha, the accused
danced with her, pinched her nose, and kissed her
on the cheek while she was on the bed/lap.
h. On 02-03-2026, the victim was produced before
the Honourable Court, and her statement was
recorded under Section 183(6) of BNSS-2023.
i. On 03-03-2026, the girl underwent a medical
examination at the District Government Hospital,
Yadgiri. Further counselling for the girl and her
mother was conducted at the Government Girls'
Children's Home.
j. On 04-03-2026, two solar CCTV memory cards
found near the scene of the Incident were seized
under Mahazar.
k. On 05-03-2026, the accused Mallikarjun (29
years) appeared for interrogation. His voluntary
statement was recorded, and four mobile
phones used by him were seized. He was
subsequently taken for a medical examination at
the Taluk Hospital, Shahapur.
18 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
l. On 09-03-2026, materials collected during the
medical examination were seized via Mahazar for
expert forensic analysis.
m. On 13-03-2026, the mobile phone used to record
the viral video was produced by a witness, Nikhil
Biradar (22 years old), and was seized under
Mahazar.
n. During the investigation, it was observed that a
video of the victim giving a statement in favour of
the accused was recorded and uploaded to social
media. It appears that the accused and his
associates are exerting influence over the
victim to alter her statement."
7. Further it is submitted that there are material to
show that the petitioner has committed the offence under
the provisions of the POCSO Act, BNS, 2023 and JJ Act,
the same will be incorporated once to this Court vacates
the stay granted in this case. Further it is stated as to the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Right to
Privacy of Adolescents, In re, reported in (2024) 15
SCC 788 and the provisions of Sections 19 to 21 of the
POCSO Act and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs.
19 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
Union of India reported in (2018) 17 SCC 291. Further
it is stated that case on hand requires investigation to
determine, as it appears that the petitioner has a habit of
committing this type of crime against the individual in
question or others. Therefore, an investigation is the
minimum necessary in this case. On all these grounds,
prays to dismiss the application.
8. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has
also filed statement of objections on behalf of the Sate to
the main petition in which it is stated that on the basis of
the complaint filed by respondent No.2, respondent
No.1/Police have registered the case in Crime No.25/2026
and submitted the FIR to the Court. The present petition is
not maintainable either in law or in facts. The present
petitioner previously filed another criminal petition
challenging the registration of FIR in Criminal Petition
No.200361/2026. That petition was dismissed as
withdrawn by order dated 03.03.2026. Therefore, the
subsequent petition based on the same facts seeking the
same relief cannot stand. Hence, the petition is liable to be
20 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
dismissed on that ground alone. No new grounds are
raised in the present petition and there has been no
change in circumstances, since the earlier petition.
Therefore, the present petition in this form cannot stand
and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Further, it is submitted that the Superintendent
of Police, in response to the letter from the Deputy
Secretary of the Juvenile Justice Committee, High Court of
Karnataka, Bengaluru written by the Deputy
Director/Secretary of Juvenile Justice Committee, has
responded and has been providing periodic updates
regarding the progress of the investigation. The
investigation indicates that the present petitioner has
influenced the child's parents, and through them, he has
influenced the child and he is further attempting to sway
the child. Following the widespread dissemination of the
video on social media, the petitioner, in consultation with
the parents, compelled the child to make a video
statement. That the provisions of the POCSO Act have
been introduced to address offences against the children
21 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
and it is the responsibility of the State to provide
protection to the child and ensure that the children are
being properly treated and not subjected to abuse,
whether physical or sexual. The present case on hand
clearly shows that the child has been both physically and
sexually abused. Therefore, the present crime must be
investigated in accordance with law.
10. Under the POCSO Act, it is mandatory for any
person, who has knowledge of the offence to prove
information about the commission of crime under the
provisions of POSCO, failing to do so, constitutes an
offence under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, 2012. In this
case, the investigation shows that the alleged video was
recorded in the presence of the victim's parents. Although
the parents of the victim were present, did not report the
incident. Therefore, liable to be regarded as accused in the
present case. The offence is punishable not only under the
provisions of POCSO but also under the provisions of BNS
and JJ Act. It is reiterated in the statement of objections
as to the contents of complaint and it is stated that there
22 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and
sought to dismiss the petition.
11. The respondent also produced the copy of the
letter addressed by the Deputy Secretary, Juvenile Justice
Committee, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru to the
Principal Secretary, Department of Women and Child
Development, the Director, Directorate of Child Protection,
the Chairperson, Karnataka State Commission for
Protection of Child Rights, the Member Secretary, District
Legal Services Authority Yadgir District, District Child
Protection Officer and the Superintended of Police.
12. The Investigation Officer has produced the copy
of the FIR pertaining to Crime No.25/2026, further
statement of Mallanna, spot panchanama, certificate under
Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (for
short, 'BSA') dated 26.02.2026, statements of Kumari
Rameshwari, certificate under Section 63(4) of the BSA
dated 27.02.2026, statements of Smt. Rajshree, Amar and
Vaishali, copy of notice dated 26.02.2026 issued under
23 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
Section 35(3) of BNSS, police notice dated 28.02.2026,
letter dated 27.02.2026 addressed to the Court, mobile
seizure panchanama dated 27.02.2026, certificate under
Section 63(4) of the BSA dated 27.02.2026, Aadhar card
of Kumari Rameshwari, copy of PF No.22/2026 dated
27.02.2026, counseling report of the victim dated
25.02.2026, copy of notice dated 04.03.2026 issued under
Section 35(3) of BNSS, copy of police notice dated
04.03.2026, victim's medical examination report,
confessional statement of the accused, mobile seizure
panchanama dated 05.03.2026, certificate under Section
63(4) of the BSA dated 05.03.2026, mobile seizure
panchanama dated 13.03.2026, certificate under Section
63(4) of the BSA dated 13.03.2026, seizure panchanama
of Solar C.C.T.V. memory card, certificate under Section
63(4) of the BSA dated 04.03.2026, statement of victim
under Section 183(6) of BNS, counseling report of the
victim dated 05.03.2026, accused medical examination
report, copy of PF No.25/2026 dated 04.03.2026, copy of
PF No.26/2026 dated 05.03.2026, FSL receipt number
24 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
dated 12.03.2026, copy of seizure panchanama dated
09.03.2026 and certificate under Section 63(4) of the BSA
dated 09.03.2026.
13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner would submit that absolutely there are no
materials to proceed against the accused for the alleged
commission of offences. The victim or the parents of the
victim have not lodged any complaint to the police.
Further he has reiterated the grounds urged in the petition
and prays to allow the petition as well as the compromise
petition filed under Section 359(2) read with Section 528
of BNSS, 2023.
14. To substantiate his arguments, he has relied
upon the following decisions:
1) Seelam Prudhvi Raj and Ors vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh [2025 SCC Online AP 539];
2) Vijayalaxmi and Anr vs. The State and
Another [Crl.M.P.No.109/2021];
3) Shiva Chanappa Odala vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Anr. [2023 Latest Case Law
1789 Bom dtd 22.02.2023];
25 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
4) Gopal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Station and Another [Misc. Crl.No.38432/2023
dtd 11.10.2023];
5) Vikram Prasad Gaur and Anr. vs. The State
NCT of Delhi and Anr. [Crl.M.C.No.3676/2025
dtd 14.08.2025];
6) Manjunath & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka
[Crl.P.No.103895/2025 dtd 25.09.2025];
7) State GNCT of Delhi vs. Baljeet Singh [2019
SCC OnLine Del 9109];
8) State vs. Anil @ Kallu @ Thakur
[Crl.Rev.P.No.1058/2019 dtd 06.11.2019];
9) MRP (Identity Withheld) vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) [(2025)1HCC (Del) 189;
10) State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajanlal and
others [1992 Supp(1) SCC 335].
15. As against this, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor has reiterated the averments made in the
statements of objection and to substantiate his
arguments, he relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. Vs.
Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992 AIR 604] and prays to
dismiss the petition.
26 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
In W.P.No.201454/2026:
16. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under
Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read Section
528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking following reliefs:
"Hence, the petitioner humbly prays that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Issue writ of
certiorari and
I. Call for the records and quash the impugned
order, observations and directions issued by
the learned Prl. Dist and Session Judge at
Yadagir while passing an order dealing with
Pre Arrest Bail in Criminal Misc.No.0089/2026
Dtd 09.03.2026 to include the offence
punishable under section 10 of POCSO Act
2012 and to investigate and collect CDR of
Accused, his close relatives, friends and close
followers to ensure the absence of tutoring or
tapering and other directions which is
produced at Annexure E.
II. To issue any writ order or direction as the
Hon'ble court is pleased to meet the ends of
justice in the circumstances of the case."
17. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ
petition is that, respondent No.1-police have registered a
case in Crime No.25/2026 of Gogi Police Station, Dist.
Yadgir, for the offences punishable under Sections 75(2) of
BNS, 2023 and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The
petitioner had filed bail application for anticipatory bail on
27 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
27.02.2026 in Crl.Misc.No.89/2026 on the file of Prl. Dist.
& Sessions Judge, Yadgir. The victim's parents appeared
voluntarily and submitted that they have no objection to
grant anticipatory bail.
18. The learned Public Prosecutor had filed
objections to the said petition, wherein it is stated that, on
enquiry by the official of CDPO to the parents of the
victim, they stated that 3 years they used to visit math
and on 19.02.2016 at about 03:38 p.m. when they were in
math, petitioner took their child affectionately in their
presence and they recorded the same in their Samsung
Mobile and on 20.02.2026 they themselves uploaded in
their Instagram to have more likes from the public and
petitioner has not touched their daughter with sexual
intent.
19. On hearing both sides, bail application came to
be rejected on 09.03.2026 and directions are issued while
disposing the bail application. That directing the
Investigating Officer to investigate and add the offence
while dealing with the bail application is beyond the limited
28 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
scope of bail applications and beyond jurisdiction and
curtails the very constitutional right of the petitioner and
his family members, friends, relatives and followers. That
no alternative remedy except under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition is
filed.
20. In the writ petition the petitioner has urged the
following grounds:
(i) That the Observations and directions made by
learned Sessions Court while dealing with a bail
application (under Section 438 CRPC/corresponding
section 482 of the BNSS) are unsustainable and
beyond jurisdiction when it travels beyond the
specific issue of granting or refusing bail and
amounts an interference with the investigation or
prejudge the case.
(ii) That while dealing with a bail application under
Section 438 Cr.P.C or 439 CRPC (corresponding
sections 482 or 483 BNSS 2023, the Sessions Court
exercises a limited jurisdiction confined to the
question of grant or refusal of bail. The Court lacks
jurisdiction to direct the Investigating Officer to add
particular offences or dietate the manner of
investigation, as investigation lies exclusively within
the domain of the police.
29 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
(iii) That the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High
Courts have consistently held that a bail court must
restrict itself to a prima facie evaluation of the case
rather than conducting a "mini-trial" or issuing
directives that steer the investigation.
(iv) That the learned session court cannot delve into a
detailed or final appreciation of evidence, nor can it
conduct a trial or re-weigh conflicting evidence at
the bail stage.
(v) That the learned sessions Court should not dictate
how the investigation should proceed as there is
presumption of innocence is always with the
accused until his is proven guilty, making pre-
conviction incarceration an exception. Hence such
directions are required to be quashed as
unsustainable directions. Such directions/order are
substantially affecting the rights of the accused.
(vi) That permitting or directing the investigating officer
to invoke severe penal provisions without proper
examination of material directly impacts the right to
personal liberty under Article 21 of the constitution
of India 1950.
(vii) That Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision between
Prashant Dagajirao Patil V/s Vaibhava@ Sonu Arun
Pawar and Anr Etc (Criminal Appeal NO.55-56/2021
(Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.5038-5039/2020)
30 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
held as under " Thus we are of the considered view
that the direction of the High Court directing the
investigating officer to examine the CCTV footage
and to submit a report is not sustainable in the eyes
of law and deserves to be set aside".
(viii) That in reported judgment of Hon'ble Apex court i.e.
(2020) 15 SCC 251 State Represented by Inspector
of Police V/s M Murugesan it is held "Jurisdiction of
High Court is limited to grant or refuse bail pending
trial and such jurisdiction ends when the bail
application is finally decided and hence directing the
state to constitute a committee and seek its
recommendations on reformation. Rehabilitation
and re integration or convicts/accused persons and
bet practises for improving the quality of
investigation and also obtained district wise data
from state and upon submission of final data after
reviewing the same, making such date a part of the
order after on bail application was held to be
beyond jurisdiction.
(ix) That in similar set facts, the Hon'ble High Court of
Kerala in WP (Crl.) 1028/2023 Dtd.23.01.2024 was
pleased to hold that observations and directions of
session court about explore the possibilities of
invoking section 16 and 17 of POCOS Act against
the accused held the unsustainable and beyond the
scope of bail application.
31 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
(x) That apart while dealing with the bail application,
victim parents has submitted hat such an incident
was not happened and petition could be granted
with bail. Moreover, the complaint itself discloses
that the alleged incident occurred in the presence of
the parents and relatives of the minor child and that
the video was recorded by the relatives of the child
at their own request. The parents of the child have
clearly stated before the competent authorities that
the petitioner had affectionately hugged the child
and there was no ill-intention or inappropriate
conduct on his part Therefore, the very foundation
of the allegation of sexual harassment under the
POCSO Act is absent and now the same is made as
hyper case by the media only.
(xi) That the material placed on record clearly reveals
that the alleged interaction between the petitioner
and the minor child was a momentary act of
affection during a religious visit to the Math. The
parents themselves requested that a photograph
and video be taken and subsequently uploaded the
same on social media. Thus, the circumstances
clearly demonstrate that the act was neither
objectionable nor perceived as wrongful by the
parents or the child at the relevant point of time.
(xii) The complaint in question is not lodged by the
alleged victim or her parents but by a Child
Development Project Officer, on a suo motu basis
32 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
after the video went viral on social media. The FIR
has therefore been registered solely on the basis of
assumptions and public controversy rather than on
any genuine grievance from the child or her
parents.
(xiii) That during the preliminary inquiry conducted by
the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) and
subsequently during the course of investigation by
the respondent police, the minor victim as well as
her parents, has categorically stated that the
alleged incident occurred in their presence and also
in the presence of their relatives at the Math.
(xiv) That parents of the victim further stated that the
interaction between the petitioner and the child was
purely affectionate in nature and that the petitioner
had no ill-intention or mens rea whatsoever at the
time of the alleged incident. The parents
themselves had requested their relatives to record
the video and photograph the moment, and the
same was later uploaded on social media by them
without perceiving any impropriety. Under such
circumstances, the learned Session Judge should
not have issued any such directions to the
investigating authority to add the offences and
investigate.
On all these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.
33 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
21. The Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
writ petitioner has reiterated the grounds urged in the writ
petition and prays to allow the writ petition.
22. To substantiate his arguments, he has relied on
the following decisions:
1) Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta vs. State of
Gujarat and Another [(2019) 14 SCC 522];
2) Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav @ Sonu
Arun Pawar and Anr. etc [Crl.A.No.55-56/2021
DD 19.01.2021]
23. As against this, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to
allow the writ petition and prays to dismiss the writ
petition.
In Crl.P.No.200464/2026:
24. This petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS,
2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest
in connection with Crime No.25/2026 by the Gogi Police
Station, Dist. Yadgir.
25. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition
are that, on the basis of the complaint filed by
34 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
Sri.Mallanna, the respondent-Gogi Police have registered a
case in Crime No.25/2026 for the offences punishable
under Sections 75(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 12 of the
POCSO Act, 2012.
26. The application was filed under Section 482 of
BNSS, 2023 before the Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Yadgir
in Crl.Misc.No.89/2026. The same came to be rejected on
09.03.2026. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition for
grant of anticipatory bail.
27. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is nothing to
do with the alleged offence and he has been falsely
implicated in this case with political influence pressure and
except bald reference, there are no allegations constituting
ingredients of neither Section 75(2) of BNS, 2023 nor
Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Section 75(2) of BNS,
2023 and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, are non bailable in
nature, but not so heinous to punish neither for life nor
death, are only punishable upto 3 years.
35 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
28. The Trial Court while rejecting the bail
application of the petitioner directed the Investigating
Officer to include Section 10 of POCSO instead of Section
12 of the POCSO Act. The same is evident from the
operative portion of the order. By issuing such a direction,
the Trial Court has acted beyond the scope and limited
parameters of consideration of bail application, thereby
committing a serious error and improperly influencing the
course of investigation. The respondent-police are went
upon to arrest the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is
reasonably apprehension about his arrest and harassment.
Hence, prays to allow the petition.
29. Additionally learned Addl. SPP appearing on
behalf of the respondent-State has reiterated the
averments made in the statement of objections, which are
as under:
30. The petition is not maintainable. The petitioner
has suppressed the material facts. On these grounds the
petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. The allegations
36 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
against the petitioner is serious in nature. The petitioner
did not deserve the extraordinary jurisdiction of granting
anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the extraordinary
jurisdiction of granting anticipatory bail cannot be
extended to the petitioner in the present case. Initially
the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.200361/2026 challenging the
registration of FIR in Crime No.25/2026. However, this
Court was not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner,
the petitioner withdrew the petition on 03.02.2026. After
withdrawing Crl.P.No.200361/2026, the petitioner filed
another Crl.P.No.200414/2026 seeking to quash the
proceedings on the grounds that the petitioner and the
victim's parents have settled the dispute amicably and the
victim's parents are no longer interested in prosecuting
the case. On this basis, the petitioner requested to quash
the proceedings.
31. It is further stated that, statement of objections
filed to the compromise petition. In view of Section 482 of
BNSS, 2023, the petitioner must demonstrate a genuine
apprehension of arrest by the respondent-police. However
37 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
since there is an order of stay on the investigation itself
issued by this Court on 17.03.2026, the question of
petitioner's apprehension of arrest by the respondent-
police does not arise at all. Therefore, the petition filed by
the petitioner is premature at this stage. Further it is
submitted that investigation into Crime No.25/2026 of
Gogi police station reveals that -
a. On 24-02-2026, it was observed on social media that
Mallikarjun, s/o Hanamantraya Naikodi, the pontiff
(Peethadhipathi) of Sri Yamanurappa Mutya Matha in
Mahalroja village, was seen in a room within the
Matha premises dancing with a minor girl on a bed,
lifting her by the neck, pinching her nose, and
kissing her while sitting her on his lap. The PSI of
Gogi P.S. traced the girl's parents and summoned
them to the station. In their statement, they claimed
they had been visiting the Matha for three years and
that Mallikarjun Mutya had no ill Intentions and they
had no complaint against him.
b. On 25-02-2026, the girl who was a victim was
brought before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC),
Yadgiri, for counselling, and a counselling report was
obtained.
c. On 25-02-2026 at 08:30 PM, Sri Mallanna, s/o
Umapathi, Child Development Project Officer
38 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
(CDPO), Shahapur, filed a complaint. Based on this,
a case was registered against Mallikarjun Mutya at
Gogi Police Station, Crime No 25/2026, under
Section 75(2) of BNS-2023 and Section 12 of the
POCSO Act-2012.
d. On 26-02-2026, the PSI continued the investigation,
took a further statement from the CDPO, carried out
a spot Mahazar (crime scene inspection), and issued
a notice to the accused under Section 35(3) of
BNSS-2023 to appear for investigation.
e. On 27-02-2026, CPI Shahapur took over the
investigation. The mobile phone containing the viral
video was surrendered by the girl's father and
seized. Statements from the parents and relatives
were recorded, where they stated that during a
birthday celebration for the girl's aunt at the Matha,
the accused danced with the girl, pinched her nose,
and kissed her on the lap.
f. On 28-02-2026, the PSI visited the accused's
address to serve a notice. As the accused was
unavailable, the notice was pasted on his house and
also served to his elder brother.
g. Smt. Hemavathi WPSI recorded the victim's
statement. The girl stated that while celebrating her
aunt's birthday at the Matha, the accused danced
with her, pinched her nose, and kissed her on the
cheek while she was on the bed/lap.
39 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
h. On 02-03-2026, the victim was produced before the
Honourable Court, and her statement was recorded
under Section 183(6) of BNSS-2023.
i. On 03-03-2026, the girl underwent a medical
examination at the District Government Hospital,
Yadgiri. Further counselling for the girl and her
mother was conducted at the Government Girls'
Children's Home.
j. On 04-03-2026, two solar CCTV memory cards found
near the scene of the incident were seized under
Mahazar.
k. On 05-03-2026, the accused Mallikarjun (29 years)
appeared for interrogation. His voluntary statement
was recorded, and four mobile phones used by him
were seized. He was subsequently taken for a
medical examination at the Taluk Hospital,
Shahapur.
l. On 09-03-2026, materials collected during the
medical examination were seized via Mahazar for
expert forensic analysis.
m. On 13-03-2026, the mobile phone used to record the
viral video was produced by a witness, Nikhil Biradar
(22 years old), and was seized under Mahazar.
n. During the investigation, it was observed that a
video of the victim giving a statement in favour of
the accused was recorded and uploaded to social
media. It appears that the accused and his
40 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
associates are exerting influence over the victim to
alter her statement.
32. It is also submitted that the investigation thus
reveals that the petitioner has committed the offence
punishable under the provisions of POCSO Act, JJ Act and
BNS, 2023. During the course of investigation, it has come
to light that the petitioner approached the victim and
made a statement on his behalf. The very fact that
petitioner approached the victim while the investigation
was still ongoing shows that petitioner is capable of
misusing his liberty, if granted, and causing obstruction
not only to the investigation, but also to the trial.
Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail
as sought for. On all these grounds, prays to dismiss the
petition.
33. Having heard the arguments on both sides and
on perusal of materials placed before this Court, the
following points would arise for consideration:
41 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
1. Whether the petitioner has made out
grounds to quash proceedings against
him in Crl.P.No.200414/2026?
2. Whether I.A.No.2/2026 and
I.A.No.3/2026 filed under Section
359(2) read with Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 and under Section 359(4)a of
BNSS, 2023 are deserve to be allowed?
3. Whether the petitioner has made out a
grounds in W.P.No.201454/2026 to
quash the order passed by the Prl. Dist.
& Sessions Judge, Yadgir in
Crl.Misc.No.89/2026 dated 09.03.2026?
4. Whether the petitioner in
Crl.P.No.200464/2026 has made out
grounds to grant anticipatory bail?
5. What order?
34. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In Negative
Point No.2 : In Negative
Point No.3 : Partly Affirmative
Point No.4 : In Affirmative
Point No.5 : As per final order.
42 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
35. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court.
36. On the basis of the complaint filed by Mallanna
s/o Umapati, CDPO Shahapur, Dist. Yadgir, the
respondent-Gogi Police have registered a case in Crime
No.25/2026 against the accused/petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 75(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section
12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. In the complaint it is stated
as under:
¸ÀA. ಅ ೕಶ/ಪ ಾ.ಕು/2025-26
¢£ÁAPÀ:25.02.2026
UÉ.
ೕ ಸ ಇ ೆಕ
ೋ ೕ ಾ ೆ
ೋ ಾ॥ಶ ಾಪ ರ.
"ಾನ$%ೇ,
&ಷಯ: ) ೕ ಮ +,ಾಜು.ನ ಮು ಾ$ ಮಹ0 %ೋ1ಾ ಾಲೂ+ಕ ಶ ಾಪ ರ
ಇವರ 4ೕ5ೆ ಪ ಕರಣ ಾಖ ಸುವ ಕು8ತು.
ಉ5ೆ+ೕಖ: 1.;ಾ"ಾ<ಕ 1ಾ5ಾ ಾನಗಳ + ಹ%ೆ ಾಡುವ &@ ೕಗಳ
ತುನುಕುಗಳA.
2. "ಾನ$ <5ಾ+ ಮಕBಳ ರC ಾD,ಾ8ಗಳA Eಾದ 8 ರವರ
"ೌHಕ I ೇ.ಶನ ¢£ÁAPÀ:24.02.2026
3.) ೕ ಮ +,ಾಜು.ನ ಮು ಾ$ ಮಹ0 %ೋ1ಾ ಮಠ,ೆB KೇL
Iೕ@ &Mಾರ ೆ ¢£ÁAPÀ:24.02.2026
43 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
4. "ಾನ$ <5ಾ+D,ಾ8ಗಳ ಅಧ$C ೆಯ + ನOೆದ <5ಾ+
ಸಮನPಯ ಸQRಯ + Iೕ@ದ ¢£ÁAPÀ 2:25.02.2026
5. <5ಾ+ ಮಕBಳ ಕ5ಾ$ಣ ಸQR Eಾದ 8 ರವರ ವರS
STಾಂಕ:25.02.2026
**
ಈ 4ೕ ನ &ಷಯ,ೆB ಸಂಬಂDXದಂ ೆ, ಉ5ೆ+ೕಖ(01)ರ STಾಂಕದಂದು ) ೕ
ಮ +,ಾಜು.ನ ಮು ಾ$ ಮಹ0%ೋ1ಾ ವಯಸು ಸು"ಾರು 30 8ಂದ 32 ಇದುY
ಇವರು STಾಂಕ:19.02.2026ರಂದು ತಮZ ಮಠ,ೆB ಬಂSದY [ಾಲ\ ಂS ೆ
Oಾ$ "ಾ@ರುವ]ದು, ಕುR^ ೆ _@ದು ಎR^ ಮಂಚದ 4ೕ5ೆ I +ಸುವ]ದು. ಮೂಗು
bವ]ಟುವ ಾಗೂ ೊOೆಯ 4ೕ5ೆ ಮಗುವನುd ಕೂ@X,ೊಂ@ರುವ &@ ೕಗಳನುd
;ಾ"ಾ<ಕ 1ಾಲ ಾಣದ + ಹ8 ಾಡುR^ರುವ]ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂSರುತ^eೆ.
ಉ5ೆ+ೕಖ(02)ರಂ ೆ <5ಾ+ ಮಕBಳ ರC ಾD,ಾ8ಗಳA ತCಣ &@ ೕಗಳನುd ನಮ ೆ
ಕಳA_X ಸದ8 ಮಠ,ೆB KೇL Iೕ@ ವರS Iೕಡಲು RfXರು ಾ^%ೆ. ಪ ಯುಕ^
ಉ5ೆ+ೕಖ(03)ರಂ ೆ <5ಾ+ ಮಕBಳ ರC ಾD,ಾ8ಗಳ ಕgೇ8ಯ XಬhಂSEಾದ ) ೕ
R ೕಶiಲ ಮತು^ Tಾನು ) ೕ ಮಲ+ಣj )ಶು ಅkವೃSm ೕಜTಾD,ಾ8ಗಳA ಶ ಾಪ ರ
ಾಗೂ ವಲಯ 4ೕ PMಾರ\Eಾದ ) ೕಮR R eೇn ಜಂLEಾ ಮಠ,ೆB KೇL Iೕ@
ಅ +ರುವ ಮಗು (ವಯಸು 07 ವಷ.) ಮತು^ ಮಗು&ನ ತಂ ೆEಾದ ) ೕ ಅಮರ ಕಂo+,
ಾpEಾದ ) ೕಮR %ಾಜ) ೕ "ಕಂ[ೆ ;ಾ॥ ;ೋ5ಾಪ ರ ಮ ಾ%ಾಷq %ಾಜ$
ಇವರನುd &Mಾ8X ಾYಗ. ಅವರು 03 ವಷ.ಗfಂದ ಕTಾ.ಟಕ %ಾಜ$ದ Eಾದ 8
<5ೆ+ಯ ಶ ಾಪ ರ ಾಲೂ+\ನ ) ೕ ಮ +,ಾಜು.ನ ಮು ಾ$ ರವರ ಮಹ0 %ೋ1ಾ
"ಮಠ,ೆB ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸ4ತ ಬಂದು ೋ "ಾಡು ೆ^ೕeೆ. ಅದರಂ ೆ
STಾಂಕ:19.02.2026ರಂದು Tಾನು ಮತು^ ನನd ೆಂಡR ) ೕಮR %ಾಜ) ೕ ಾಗೂ
02 ೆಣುj ಮಕBಳA (ವಯಸು 07 ಮತು^ 10 ವಷ.) ಾಗೂ ನಮZ bಕBಪr ) ೕ 8ೕಶ
ಾಗೂ ಇನೂd 07-08 ಜನರು ಬಂS ೆವ]. ಆSನ ಮtಾ$ಹd 03:38 ಸು"ಾ8 ೆ
Tಾವ] ಮಠದ + ಮ +,ಾಜು.ನ ಮು ಾ$ ಇವ8 ೆ KೇLEಾಗಲು ೋ ಾYಗ ನಮZ 07
ವಷ.ದ ಮಗಳA ಮು ಾBರವರ ಹR^ರ ೋ . ದಶ.ನ ಪOೆ ಾYಗ ಮು ಾರವರು ನಮZ
ಮಗf ೆ u ೕRpಂದ ತಮZ ಹR^ರ ಕೂ@X,ೊಂ@ರು ಾ^%ೆ. ಆಗ Tಾವ] ನಮZ
;ಾ$ಮಸಂಗ vೕ[ೈ0 xೕ ನಮZ bಕBಪr 8ೕಶ ಅವ8 ೆ &@ ೕ "ಾಡಲು
ಮತು^ ೕyೋ ೆ ೆಯಲು RfXರು ೆ^ೕeೆ. ನಂತರ STಾಂಕ:20.02.2026ಶಯ
ನನd ಇ ;ಾ ಾ ಂನ + ೆbzನ ಸಂ{ೆ$ 5ೈ| Xಗುವ] ೆಂದು Kಾ&X ಅಪ5ೋ}
44 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
"ಾ@ರು ೆ^ೕTೆ. ಅ +,ಾಯ. ಮು ಾ$ ರವರು Eಾವ] ೇ ,ೇಟ ದೃ~ _ಂದ
Tೋ@ರುವ]Sಲ+eೆಂದು RfXರು ಾ^%ೆ. XSYX, KೇLಯ ವರSಯನು. "ಾನ$, <5ಾ+
ಮಕBಳ ರC ಾD,ಾ8ಗf ೆ Iೕ@ದ8ಂದ "ಾನ$ <5ಾ+D,ಾ8ಗಳA ಪ8)ೕ Xರು ಾ^%ೆ.
ಉ5ೆ+ೕಖ(04)ರಂ ೆ STಾಂಕ:25.02.2026ರಂದು "ಾನ$ <5ಾ+D,ಾ8ಗಳA -
CzsÀåPÀëvÉAiÀÄ°è ನOೆದ <5ಾ+ ಮಟ ದ ಸಮನPಯ ಸQRಯ + "ಾನ$ ಮುಖ$
,ಾಯ.Ieಾ.ಹಕ ಅD,ಾ8ಗಳA <5ಾ+ ಪಂMಾಯತ, ೕ ವ8ಾD,ಾ8ಗಳA
Eಾದ 8, ಸದಸ$ ,ಾಯ.ದ).ಗಳA ,ಾನೂನು ;ೇeೆಗಳ ಾ D,ಾರ Eಾದ 8,
ಇವರುಗಳ ಜಂLEಾ &@ ೕಗಳನುd &X ಮತು^ ಪ8)ೕ X, ಸದ8 ಪ ಕರಣ,ೆB
ಸಂಬಂDXದಂ ೆ <5ಾ+ ಮಕBಳ ಕ5ಾ$ಣ ಸQR Eಾದ 8 ಇವರ ತI{ೆಯ
ವರSಯನುd ಪOೆದು ಸೂಕ^ ಕ ಮ ,ೈ ೊಳಲು I ೇ.ಶನ Iೕ@ರು ಾ^%ೆ.
ಅದರಂ ೆ ಉ5ೆ+ೕಖ(05)ರಂ ೆ <5ಾ+ ಮಕBಳ ಕ5ಾ$ಣ ಸQRಯು &Mಾರ ೆ ೆ
ಕ%ೆದು ಾಲಕರ 1ೊ ೆ ಮತು^ ಮಗು&ನ 1ೊ ೆ "ಾತTಾ@ ಾYಗ, ಸದ8 ಮಗು&ನ
ಾಲಕರು ) ೕ ಮ +,ಾಜು.ನ ಅ ಾr<ಯವರ ಆಶ ಮದ + ಮಗು&ನ bಕBಮZನ ಹುಟು
ಹಬhದ ,ಾಯ.ಕ ಮದ ಪ ಯುಕ^ ೋ ಾಗ, ಈ ಘಟTೆ ಸಂಭ&Xರುತ^ ೆ. ಸದ8
ಪ ಕರಣದ + ಸಂಭ&Xದ ಘಟTೆ 4ೕ5ೊdೕಟ,ೆB ಉ ೆYೕಶ ಪ ವ.ಕeಾ ಅ ಾ ಪ^
ಮಗು& ೆ ಮುL ರುವ]ದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂSರುತ^ ೆ. ಆದY8ಂದ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಪಟ ವರ &ರುದm
ೕ,ೋ ,ಾ Yಯ@ಯ + ಪ ಕರಣ ಾಖ ಸುವಂ ೆ ಆರCಕ ಉಪI8ೕCಕರು ೋ
ೕ ಾ ೆ ೆ ವರS Iೕ@ರು ಾ^%ೆ. ಅದ8ಂದ ಸದ8 ಪ ಕರಣದ + Kಾ Eಾ ರುವ
) ೕ ಮ +,ಾಜು.ನ ಮು ಾ$ ಮಹ0gÉÆÃ1ಾ ಾಲೂ+ಕ ಶ ಾಪ ರ ಇವರ 4ೕ5ೆ ಪ ಕರಣ
ಾಖ ಸಲು ತಮZ + ,ೋ8 ೆ.
37. That during the course of investigation, the
Investigating Officer has recorded the further statement of
Mallanna-CDPO on 26.02.2026 before filing this petition
conducted spot panchanama and recorded the statement
of witnesses-Kumari.Rameshwari, Smt.Rajashri, Amar,
Vaishali and statement of the President of District Children
45 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
Welfare Committee, Yadgir and Property Forms submitted
to the Magistrate, counseling report submitted by the
President District Child Welfare committee, Yadgir and
copy of the notice issued to the petitioner under Section
35(3) of BNSS, 2023 dated 04.03.2026, Medico legal
examination report of sexual violence, the seizure/recover
panchanama, copy of video details, properly seizure memo
and certificates filed under Section 63(4)(c) of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, CCTV memory card
seizure panchanama; with video details and statement of
victim recorded under Section 183(6) of BNSS.
38. A perusal of these materials, at this stage, that
there are no sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings
initiated against the petitioner. Though the parents of the
victim have not lodged any complaint to the police,
proceedings cannot be quashed on that ground. The
alleged commission of offence under the penal provisions,
POCSO Act, 2012 are cognizable in nature, and anybody
can set the law in motion. Accordingly, after noticing the
facts as to the commission of offence, the Child
46 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
Development Project Officer has lodged a complaint to the
police and in view of the provisions of POCSO Act, it is
mandatory for any person who has knowledge of the
offence to provide information about the commission of
crime under the provisions of POCSO Act, failing to do so,
constitute an offence under Section 21 of POCSO Act,
2012.
39. The Investigation Officer has collected materials
and produced the same before the Court, which reveals
that alleged video was recorded in the presence of victim's
parents. The parents of the victim have to protect the
rights of the child. The parents of the victim have to take
utmost care and protection of the victim child. The parents
of the victim have no right to allow the petitioner to lift the
neck of the child, pinching her nose and kissing her while
sitting her on the lap of the petitioner. The Investigating
Officer has seized two solar CCTV memory cards found
near the scene of incident. The Investigating Officer has
recorded the voluntary statement of the petitioner and
seized four mobile phones.
47 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
40. The learned Addl. SPP has relied on the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Right to
Privacy of Adolescents, In re, (2024) 15 SCC 788,
held as follows:
"37. If a child is residing with a person who has
injured, exploited or abused the child or has violated
any other law for the time being in force meant for
the protection of the child, the said child becomes a
child in need of care and protection. Thus, if a child
who is a victim of an offence under the POCSO Act is
residing with the accused, the child becomes a child
in need of care and protection. Even a child who has
a parent or guardian and if such parent or guardian
is found to be unfit to take care of the child, in such
a case, the child is covered by the definition under
sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the JJ Act.
Therefore, CWC has to exercise the power to provide
basic needs and protection to such children in need
of care and protection."
41. He has relied on another decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of M.C.Mehta vs. State of
T.N., [(1996) 6 SCC 756] has observed as under:
"....."child is the father of man". To enable fathering
of a valiant and vibrant man, the child must be
groomed well in the formative years of his life. He
must receive education, acquire knowledge of man
and materials and blossom in such an atmosphere
that on reaching age, he is found to be a man with a
mission, a man who matters so far as the society is
concerned."
48 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
42. He has relied on another decision in the case of
Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, (2018) 17
SCC 291 held as follows:
"10. The Pocso Act has been legislated keeping in view
the fundamental concept under Article 15 of the
Constitution that empowers the State to make special
provisions for children and also Article 39(1) which
provides that the State shall in particular direct its policy
towards securing that the children are given opportunities
and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in
conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and
youth are protected against exploitation and against
moral and material abandonment. The Statement of
Objects and Reasons of the Act indicate the focus for
reduction of child abuse and protection of children from
the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and
pornography, etc.
11. The relevant part of the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Pocso Act is extracted below.
"3. The data collected by the National Crime
Records Bureau shows that there has been Increase
in cases of sexual offences against children. This is
corroborated by the "Study on Child Abuse India
2007" conducted by the Ministry of Women and
Child Development. Moreover, sexual offences
against children are not adequately addressed by
the existing laws. A large number of such offences
are neither specifically provided for nor are they
adequately penalised. The interests of the child,
both as a victim as well as a witness, need to be
protected. It is felt that offences against children
need to be defined explicitly and countered through
commensurate penalties as an effective deterrence.
49 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
4. It is, therefore, proposed to enact a self.
contained comprehensive legislation inter alla to
provide for protection of children from the offences
of sexual assault, sexual harassment and
pornography with due regard for safeguarding the
interest and well being of the child at every stage of
the judicial process incorporating child-friendly
procedures for reporting, recording of evidence,
investigation and trial of offences and provision for
establishment of Special Courts for speedy trial of
such offences."
43. In the case on hand, on perusal of the materials
placed before this Court, there are prima facie materials to
proceed against the accused for the alleged commission of
offences under the penal provision of POCSO Act, 2012. At
this stage, the arguments advanced on behalf of the
petitioner cannot be accepted as the investigation is not
yet completed.
44. Considering the prima facie materials placed by
the prosecution and keeping in mind the aforestated
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and presumption
of culpable mental state defined under Section 30 of
POCSO Act, 2012, at this stage, it is not a fit case to
exercise the inherent power under Section 528 of the
50 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
BNSS, 2023 and also the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors.
vs Bhajan Lal and ors. [1992 AIR 604] at this stage, it
is not just and proper to exercise of the extra-ordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
Point No.2:
45. The petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed
applications under Section 359 (2) read with Section 528
of BNSS, 2023, supported with the affidavit of the
petitioner and the father of the victim Amar Kamble.
46. In the affidavit the petitioner has stated that,
the alleged incident took place when the parents of the
minor child had visited along with their family members
and relatives. During the said visit, the minor child
approached the petitioner for blessings and he
affectionately interacted with the child in the presence of
her parents and relatives. The photographs and videos
51 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
were recorded by the uncle of the child at the request of
parents and same were later uploaded on social media by
him, he had no ill intention, mens rea or sexual intent
whatsoever while interacting with the child and the act
was purely affectionate in nature. The minor child has
categorically stated that they have no grievance or
complaint against the petitioner and the incident occurred
in their presence and the petitioner has amicably resolved
the issue and the parents have expressed that they have
no objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed. On
all these grounds, prays to allow the petition.
47. In the affidavit of Amar Jawahar Kamale, the
father of the victim has stated that they have visited the
Math of the petitioner on 19.02.2026 along with their
family members and their two daughters. During their visit
one younger daughter approached the petitioner for
blessings and the petitioner affectionately interacted with
the child in their presence. The photographs and video of
the said moment were recorded at their own request by
their relatives using their mobile phone. Thereafter, the
52 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
video was uploaded by them on social media without
perceiving anything objectionable in the interaction. They
have given statements in preliminary enquiry about the
incident is purely affectionately interacted. The interaction
between the petitioner and their daughter was purely
affectionate in nature similar to the manner elders bless
children. Petitioner had no ill intention or improper conduct
towards their daughter and the incident occurred entirely
in their presence. They have no complaint or grievance
whatsoever against the petitioner and the continuation of
the criminal proceedings could unnecessarily disturb the
peace of their family and may also affect the emotional
welfare and privacy of the minor child and they have no
objection to quash the proceedings.
48. The alleged commission of offence under the
penal provision of POCSO Act are non compoundable in
nature. The alleged commission of offence under Section
75(2) of BNS, 2023 does not come under the provisions of
359(1) and (2) of BNSS, 2023.
53 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
49. The investigation is not yet completed. The
prosecution has seriously objected to the compromise
petition. The petitioner has committed the offence under
the provisions of POCSO Act, JJ Act and BNS. It is also
stated that the appropriate sections will be incorporated.
Once this Court has vacated the stay granted in this case,
considering the nature and gravity of offences, and
keeping in mind the child rights, I am of the opinion that it
is not just and proper to allow this petition to compound
the alleged offences.
50. With regard to I.A.No.3/2026 filed under
Section 359(4)a of BNSS, 2023, is concerned, since the
offence is not compoundable in nature, the question of
permitting the respondent Nos.3 and 4 the parents of the
victim to compound the offence on behalf of minor child
does not arise.
51. I have carefully gone through the decisions
relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
facts and circumstances of this case are not in consonance
54 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
with the facts of the decisions relied on by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Hence, I am of the considered
view that at this stage, it is not just and proper to exercise
the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS to compound
the offence in a crime stage. Hence, on the basis of the
these decisions relied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
Accordingly, I answer point No.2 in the Negative.
Point No.3:
52. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in
W.P.No.201454/2026 to quash the impugned order,
observations and directions issued by the Prl. Dist. &
Sessions Judge, Yadgir while passing the order pre-arrest
bail in Crl.Misc.No.89/2026 dated 09.03.2026 to include
the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act,
2012.
53. The petitioner had filed petition before the Prl.
Dist. & Sessions Judge, Yadgir in Crl.Misc.No.89/2026. The
55 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
Sessions Judge has dismissed the petition and made the
following observations:
"The petition filed by the petitioner/accused
under Section 482 of BNSS., is hereby rejected.
The court further directed that:
The investigating officer shall investigate this
case in accordance with Standard Operating
procedure (SOP) of Central Government published
in the official website of Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Superintendent of Police shall constitute a
group of investigators with specialized knowledge
and experienced in investigating the cases of this in
nature along with nominating one among them as
chief investigator in accordance with Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) of Ministry of Home
Affairs.
The Investigating officer shall include Sec.10
of POCSO Act instead of 12 of the Act in this case
against the accused.
The Investigating officer shall comply the
statutory requirements U/sec.23, 24 (3), 27 & 39 of
POCSO Act.
The Investigating officer shall collect electronic
evidence in primary form at the earliest so as to
ensure its genunity and absence of tampering in any
way by any interested person.
The investigating officer shall hold counceling
of victim, her parents and relatives with the
assistance of an expert psychiatrist to ensure
absence of tampering or tutoring.
To ensure absence of identification of victim,
her relatives in any way through out the
investigation.
56 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
To investigate and collect CDR of accused, his
close relatives, friends and close followers to ensure
absence of tutoring or tampering."
54. At this stage, it is relevant to mention as to the
provisions of Section 33 of Chapter VIII of POCSO Act,
2012, which reads as under:
"33. Procedure and powers of Special Court.--(1) A
Special Court may take cognizance of any offence,
without the accused being committed to it for trial, upon
receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such
offence, or upon a police report of such facts.
(2) The Special Public Prosecutor, or as the case
may be, the counsel appearing for the accused shall,
while recording the examination-in-chief, cross-
examination or re-examination of the child, communicate
the questions to be put to the child to the Special Court
which shall in turn put those questions to the child.
(3) The Special Court may, if it considers
necessary, permit frequent breaks for the child during the
trial.
(4) The Special Court shall create a child-friendly
atmosphere by allowing a family member, a guardian, a
friend or a relative, in whom the child has trust or
confidence, to be present in the court.
(5) The Special Court shall ensure that the child is
not called repeatedly to testify in the court.
(6) The Special Court shall not permit aggressive
questioning or character assassination of the child and
ensure that dignity of the child is maintained at all times
during the trial.
(7) The Special Court shall ensure that the identity
of the child is not disclosed at any time during the course
of investigation or trial: Provided that for reasons to be
57 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
recorded in writing, the Special Court may permit such
disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is in the
interest of the child.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section,
the identity of the child shall include the identity of the
child's family, school, relatives, neighbourhood or any
other information by which the identity of the child may
be revealed.
(8) In appropriate cases, the Special Court may, in
addition to the punishment, direct payment of such
compensation as may be prescribed to the child for any
physical or mental trauma caused to him or for
immediate rehabilitation of such child.
(9) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a Special
Court shall, for the purpose of the trial of any offence
under this Act, have all the powers of a Court of Session
and shall try such offence as if it were a Court of Session,
and as far as may be, in accordance with the procedure
specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) for trial before a Court of Session."
55. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the
Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Yadgir, I do not find any legal
or factual error in directing the Investigation Officer to
investigate the case in accordance with the standard
operating procedure of the Central Government published
in the official website of Ministry of Home Affairs and
compliance of statutory requirements under Sections 23,
24(3), 27 and 39 of POCSO Act and other directions
58 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
except to include the offence under Section 10 of POCSO
Act instead of Section 12 of POCSO Act.
56. With regard to the direction issued to include
the offence under Section 10 of POCSO Act, instead of
Section 12 of the POCSO Act, is concerned, the Special
Court ought not to have issued this direction as the
investigation is not yet completed.
57. During the course of investigation or after
completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer can
insert appropriate provision of POCSO Act or other penal
provisions of BNS or other Acts. At this stage, the Trial
Court cannot interfere with the investigation and direct the
Investigating Officer to insert offence under Section 10 of
the POCSO Act. To that extent, the petitioner has made
out grounds to allow this petition.
58. With regard to rest of the directions are
concerned, the Special Court can exercise the power under
the provisions of Section 33 of Chapter VIII of POCSO Act,
SOP issued by the Central Government published in the
59 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
official website of Ministry of Home Affairs. Accordingly, I
answer point No.3 partly Affirmative.
Point No.4:
59. The petitioner has filed Crl.P.No.200464/2026
under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of anticipatory
bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.25/2026 of Gogi
Police Station.
60. It is relevant to mention as to the provisions of
Section 482 of BNSS, which are as under:
"482. Direction for grant of bail to person
apprehending arrest.
(1) When any person has reason to believe
that he may be arrested on an accusation of
having committed a non-bailable offence, he
may apply to the High Court or the Court of
Session for a direction under this section; and
that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the
event of such arrest, he shall be released on
bail.
(2) When the High Court or the Court of
Session makes a direction under sub-section
(1), it may include such conditions in such
directions in the light of the facts of the
particular case, as it may think fit, including-
(i) a condition that the person shall make
himself available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required;
(ii) a condition that the person shall not,
directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any
60 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer;
(iii) a condition that the person shall not
leave India without the previous
permission of the Court;
(iv) such other condition as may be
imposed under sub-section (3) of
section 480, as if the bail were
granted under that section.
(3) If such person is thereafter arrested
without warrant by an officer in charge of a
police station on such accusation, and is
prepared either at the time of arrest or at any
time while in the custody of such officer to give
bail, he shall be released on bail; and if a
Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence
decides that a warrant should be issued in the
first instance against that person, he shall
issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the
direction of the Court under sub-section (1).
(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any
case involving the arrest of any person on
accusation of having committed an offence
under section 65 and sub-section (2) of section
70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023."
61. In the case on hand, the Investigating Officer
has issued the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS on
26.02.2026 and 28.02.2026. The accused has appeared
before the Investigating Officer and Investigating Officer
has recorded the voluntary statement of the accused on
61 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
05.03.2026. The same is also produced before the Court.
The Investigating Officer has also recorded the further
statement of witnesses Rameshwari, Smt.Rajashri, Amar,
Vaishali and conducted seizure mahanzar, spot mahazar
and seized properties Solar CCTV memory card and other
properties and incerted PF 25/26 and 25/26. The
Investigating Officer has produced the victim before the
Magistrate and recorded the statement under Section
183(6) of BNSS and in the statement of objections itself it
is stated that, there is no apprehension of arrest.
62. Though the petitioner has appeared before the
Investigating Officer after receiving the notice under
Section 35(3), the Investigating Officer has not arrested
him. The Investigating Officer has already interrogated the
petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has complied the
provisions of sub-section 4 of Section 35 of BNSS, 2023.
63. In view of Section 35(5) of BNSS where the
person complies and continues to comply with the notice,
he shall not be arrested in respect of offence referred to in
62 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
the notice unless, for the reasons to be recorded, the
Police Officer is of the opinion that he ought to be
arrested. If a person fails to comply with the terms of the
notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer
may subject to such orders as may be passed by the
competent Court in this way of arrest him for the offence
mentioned in the notice.
64. The alleged commission of offence under
Section 12 of the POCSO Act, is punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The
alleged offence under Section 75(2) of BNS, 2023 is
punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
65. Considering the nature and gravity of offences,
previous antecedents of the petitioner, it is just and proper
to exercise the power conferred under Section 482 of
BNSS, 2023. Accordingly, I answer point No.4 in the
Affirmative.
63 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
Point No.5:
66. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1) Crl.P.No.200414/2026 filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is dismissed.
2) The application in I.A.No.2/2026 under Section 359(2) read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 and application in I.A.No.3/2026 under Section 359(4)a of BNSS, 2023 are dismissed.
3) W.P.No.201454/2026 filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is partly allowed.
4) The directions issued by the Prl. Dist. &
Sessions Judge, Yadgir in
Crl.Misc.No.89/2026 with regard to
directions issued to the Investigating
64 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026
WP No.201454 OF 2026
Officer to include Section 10 of the POCSO Act, instead of Section 12 of POCSO Act, against the accused is hereby quashed.
5) The Writ petition is dismissed in respect of rest of the directions issued by the Special Court (POCSO) in Cril.Misc.No.89/2026 dated 09.03.2026.
6) Crl.P.No.200464/2026 filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed with following conditions:
a) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in event of his arrest in Crime No.25/2026 of Gogi police station;65 Crl.P.No.200414 OF 2026 C/w
Crl.P.No.200464 OF 2026 WP No.201454 OF 2026
b) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
d) The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the concerned Special Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RSP/Sdu