(Prayer: This criminal petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS (under Section 439 of Cr.p.c.), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/accused on regular bail in Spl. S.C. No.05/2026 pertaining to Byadgi P.S. Crime No:243/2025 registered by the respondent-Byadgi Police Station, Byadagi for the offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 64(2)(f), 65(1), 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 4, 6, 8 and 12 of protection of children from sexual offence, 2012 pending trial of Spl Case No.05/2026 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge FTSC-I, Haveri, who is in judicial custody in the above said crime on such terms and conditions as deemed fit to be imposed by this hon’ble court, in the interest of justice and equity.)

B. Muralidhara Pai, J.

Cav Order:

1. The accused in Special S.C.No.5/2026 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Haveri has maintained this petition praying to enlarge him on regular bail in the case.

2. Brief facts leading to this petition are as under:

               (i) On 09.11.2025, the Respondent No.2 herein lodged a complaint with Byadgi Police alleging that on 08.11.2025 at about 4.30 p.m., the petitioner herein committed sexual assault on her minor daughter.

               (ii) Based on such complaint, the jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No.243/2025 for the offences under Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO’ Act) and Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’) and took up the investigation.

               (iii) On 10.11.2025, the jurisdictional police arrested the petitioner in the case.

               (iv) On completion of the investigation, the jurisdictional police laid charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 64(2)(f), 65(1), 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of BNS and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of POCSO Act.

               (v) Meanwhile, the petitioner maintained a bail application before the trial court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (in short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the case. The said bail application came to be rejected on 02.02.2026.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.11.2025 at about 4:30 p.m., the victim was playing hide-and-seek with other children in front of their house. The victim entered the petitioner's house to hide, and at that time, the petitioner committed sexual assault on her. It is further stated that other children saw the petitioner committing the sexual assault on the victim from the window of his house and narrated the incident to the victim's mother. Immediately thereafter, the victim's mother went to the petitioner's house, had the door opened, and confirmed the incident by questioning the victim.

4. Sri Sriharsh A. Neelopant, learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed the alleged offences and that he was arrested based on a false complaint lodged against him. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the Medico-Legal Examination Report pertaining to the victim and FSL Report dated 12.12.2025, submitting that these records reveal no evidence suggestive of rape and no incriminating materials were detected in the articles belonging to the victim. In view thereof, he contended that there is no direct or indirect material available in prosecution papers to connect the petitioner to the alleged offences. He submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 10.11.2025 and his continued detention pending disposal of the case is unwarranted. As such, he prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail on the ground that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by the court.

5. Per contra, Sri Dayanand Sangreshi, learned HCGP submitted that the prosecution papers contain sufficient incriminating materials to connect the petitioner to the alleged crime and that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail pending trial of the case, it is likely to prejudice the prosecution apart from creating insecurity in the mind of the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, he strenuously submitted that the petitioner has not made out valid ground to seek regular bail at this stage of the proceeding.

6. It is well settled that at the stage of considering bail application, the Court requires to assess prima facie materials in prosecution papers without conducting a mini-trial, focusing on whether a reasonable ground exists to believe the accusation. This involves scrutinizing case diaries, FIR, witness statements, and other records for foundational facts supporting allegations. Availability of strong evidence, nature and gravity of offence, tampering potential or public safety threats are the factors which weigh heavily against the bail.

7. In the case on hand, the materials on record prima facie indicate that the victim was aged below 14 years at the time of the alleged incident and the accused, i.e, the petitioner, is a relative of the victim, who resides in the neighbourhood. The prosecution papers indicate that during the investigation three more children, who were playing with the victim, have given statements supporting the case of the prosecution apart from victim’s own statement. No doubt, Medico-Legal Examination Report of the victim states that there was no evidence suggestive of rape and there were no external injuries suggestive of assault on the victim. It is to be noted that the victim was medically examined after two days of the alleged incident. Further, the doctor concerned opined that the victim has undergone sexual intercourse. Thereby, it becomes clear that it requires a careful scrutiny and appreciation of all the materials on record in the backdrop of the testimony of prosecution witnesses’ and that to, after a full-fledged trial.

8. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that by this time the trial court has recorded the evidence of the victim as well as all other eye witnesses and as such, no hardship or prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the petitioner is enlarged on bail pending disposal of the case. He also submitted that except the victim none of the eye witnesses supported the case of the prosecution during trial of the case. First of all, the petitioner has not produced copies of those depositions before this Court. Further, this Court cannot go into merits of the case at the stage of deciding the bail application.

9. The submissions made during the course of argument indicate that the trial has commenced in the case and the trial court has already recorded evidence of all material witnesses. The petitioner is a relative of the victim and a neighbour. In these facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in mind the gravity and nature of the offence, the punishment, the psychological effect of release on the prosecution witnesses, etc., this Court opines that enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this stage of the proceeding is likely to prejudice the prosecution.

10. In the result, this Court proceeds to the following:

                                                                           ORDER

               (i) The petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is dismissed.

               (ii) The trial court is directed to dispose of the case in Special S.C.No.5/2026 at the earliest, in accordance with law and without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.