(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, praying to release petitioner/Accused No.1 on Regular Bail (in connection with Crime No. 95/2025 registered by the Nargund Police Station District Gadag) for an offence punishable U/S 137(2), 65(1) of BNS and Section 4 and 6 of POSCO Act, pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge Gadag.)

Oral Order

1. Heard Sri. Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P. N. Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri. Santosh D. Nargund, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. Petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the following prayer:

          "Wherefore, the petitioner/accused most respectfully prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to release Petitioner/Accused No.1 on regular bail (in connection with Crime No.95/2025 registered by the Nargund Police Station District Gadag) for an offence punishable U/S 137(2), 65(1) of BNS and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. Pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, in the interest of justice."

3. Petitioner is alleged with the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 65(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.

4. The attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail is turned down by the learned Special Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the case of the prosecution is as doubtful as anything inasmuch as there is a huge delay in filing the complaint itself. Only on the suspicion, petitioner has been apprehended and he is in custody on and from 16.05.2025. Therefore, continuation of the accused in judicial custody is no longer warranted. More so, considering that the charge sheet has already been filed and sought for grant of bail.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the bail application and contended that an earlier order in a matter of similar nature would not be sufficient enough to grant bail, and sought for dismissal of petition.

7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the victim girl is aged 15 years. Therefore, the argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner that it is a consensual act cannot be countenanced in law.

9. Further, there is clear averment in the complaint itself that the accused eloped the victim girl on motorcycle along with her friends and four of them had been to Ramadurg.

10. Again on 25.04.2025, the accused took the victim girl alone near Ramadurg and then had a sexual intercourse with the victim girl.

11. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, and also collecting the other corroboratory materials, charge sheet came to be filed. Further, mere delay in lodging the complaint is not a valid parameter to consider the bail request and having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner herein.

12. It is always open for the petitioner to renew his request after the victim girl and material witnesses are examined, and if there is any positive change in circumstances.

13. With that liberty for the petitioner, the following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.