Karnataka High Court
Gopal vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:367
CRL.P No. 202096 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 202096 OF 2025
(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
GOPAL S/O. BALAPPA HATTI
AGE 20 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
YARAGODI VILLAGE,
TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584122.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USLAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
Digitally signed LINGASUGUR POLICE STATION, RAICHUR.
by SHIVALEELA REPRESENTED BY STATE ADDL. SPP
DATTATRAYA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
UDAGI AT KALABURAGI-585107.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SRI HANUMAGOWDA
KARNATAKA
S/O. HANUMANTRAYA HALABHAVI,
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC:FARMER,
R/O KADADARAGADDI VILLAGE,
TQ. LINGASUGUR
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SHARANAGOUDA V. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:367
CRL.P No. 202096 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C (OLD) U/S 483
OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE BAIL APPLICATION
AND RELEASE THE ACCUSED /PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO. 124/2025 LINGASUGUR PS FOR THE OFFNCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 137(2), 64, OF THE BNSS ACT -2023 AND
U/SEC. 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE
FILE OF III-ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR,
SITTING AT SINDHANUR AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
THE CASES UNDER POCSO ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner/accused for grant of bail in Crime No.124/2025 dated 25.05.2025 registered by the Lingasugur Police, Raichur, for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64 of BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act').
2. The factual matrix of the case is that, the father of victim one Hanumantraya alleged that his minor daughter was missing from 23.05.2025. After search, he -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:367 CRL.P No. 202096 of 2025 HC-KAR lodged a missing complaint before the respondent-police on 25.05.2025. The same was registered in Crime No.124/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 137(2) of BNS 2023, against unknown persons.
3. Thereafter on 09.06.2025, the victim and accused were traced in a tin shed at Karigudda village. Thereafter, respondent No.1-police recorded the statement of the victim, wherein it is stated that on 24.05.2025 at about 01:20 a.m., in the night hours, the accused kidnapped her and thereafter, took her to Amareshwara in a bus and thereafter they both stayed in a tin shed at Karigudda for a period of 15 days and during that time, the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. As such, the respondent-police implicated the petitioner in the crime by invoking sections 137(2) and 64 of BNS and sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, the respondent-police arrested the petitioner and produced him before the Special Court and thereby sent to judicial custody. The petitioner is in custody from 09.06.2025. -4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:367 CRL.P No. 202096 of 2025 HC-KAR Subsequently, respondent-police investigated the case and laid charge-sheet against the accused for the aforementioned offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur Sitting at Sindhanur and Special Judge For Trial Of The Cases Under POCSO Act in Crl.Misc.No.5469/2025 for grant of bail, which was rejected vide order dated 22.11.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State.
5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contented that, on perusal of the charge-sheet averments, the victim and accused were in love and she voluntarily accompanied the accused and also stayed together for a period of 15 days in a tin shed at Karigudda village. Further, though an -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:367 CRL.P No. 202096 of 2025 HC-KAR allegation was made in the charge-sheet that the accused committed forcible sexual act on the victim, no such medical records prima facie discloses that there was forcible sexual act by the accused on the victim. Moreover, the prosecution has not placed any authenticated document like birth certificate to prove the age of the victim that she was minor at the time of incident. In such circumstances, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the bail petition on the ground that the prosecution has placed the certificate issued by the School Authority to prove the age of the victim that she was minor at the time of incident and statement of victim under Section 183 of BNSS depicts that accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader also opposed to the petition by supporting the impugned order. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:367 CRL.P No. 202096 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and documents available on record.
9. As could be gathered from the complaint and other records, the accused and the victim belongs to the neighboring village and on 24.05.2025 the victim was found missing from the house of the complainant. As such, on the very next day i.e., on 25.05.2025, he lodged a missing complaint against unknown persons. Subsequently, after 15 days, the victim and the accused were traced in a tin shed at Karigudda village. On perusal of the statement of the victim, the same reveals that the accused and victim travelled in a bus from Amareshwara to Karigudda village. Admittedly, she has not informed about the kidnap to anybody. The medical report of the victim also discloses that there is no forcible sexual assault on the victim.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:367 CRL.P No. 202096 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. Further, to prove the age of the victim, the prosecution has placed the Admission Register and School Certificate issued by the Headmaster of the School in which the victim has studied. The said certificate or register is not accompanied with the birth certificate of the victim. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, it discloses that the victim has given no objection to allow the bail petition and she categorically stated that they both were in love.
11. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana reported in 2013 Crl. Law Journal 2990, held in para No.18 and 21 as under:
"18. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:367 CRL.P No. 202096 of 2025 HC-KAR satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was given after wholly, understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of mis-representation made to her by the accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives.
21. Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time, i.e. at initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances. The "failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to misconception of fact. In order to come within the meaning of the term misconception of fact, the fact must have an immediate relevance."-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:367 CRL.P No. 202096 of 2025 HC-KAR Section 90 IPC cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the court is assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her."
12. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajneesh Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2025 (4) SCC 197 held that, when a women who willingly engages in a long term sexual relationship with a man, fully aware of its nature and without any cogent evidence to show that such relationship was induced by misconception of facts or false promise of marriage made in bad faith from the inception, the man cannot be held guilty of rape under Section 376 of IPC. Thus it is clear that accused can be convicted for rape only if the Court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was malafide, and that he had clandestine motives. The materials placed in the case are sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertion contained in the complaint that accusations are false. As such, the continuation of proceedings/trial would
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:367 CRL.P No. 202096 of 2025 HC-KAR result in an abuse of process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice, specially, when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of accused.
13. Hence, the truthfulness and genuineness of the age proof produced by the prosecution and the statement of the victim has to be tested in a detailed trial. Since the investigation is already completed and charge-sheet has been laid against the accused, his custodial incarceration does not call for. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, suffice to hold that the petitioner can be enlarged on regular bail.
14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
15. The petitioner/accused is directed to be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No.124/2025 registered by Lingasugur Police Station, Raichur, for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64 of BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, subject to the following conditions:
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:367 CRL.P No. 202096 of 2025 HC-KAR
a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
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;
c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;
d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;
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;
f) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Station House Officer, Lingasugur Police Station, Raichur, on 1st Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 01.00 p.m. till the case
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:367 CRL.P No. 202096 of 2025 HC-KAR registered against him is disposed off before the Trial Court.
g) The observation made in this petition shall not come in the way of trial.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1 Ct;rj