Karnataka High Court
Mehaboob vs The State Through on 2 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2877
CRL.P No. 200438 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200438 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MEHABOOB S/O MEHABOOB SAB
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KARADIGUDDA VILLAGE
TQ: MANVI DIST: RAICHUR-584123
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH
MANVI POLICE STATION
DIST: RAICHUR, NOW REPRESENTED BY
Digitally signed by ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SHIVALEELA AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585107
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. VICTIM GIRL REPRESENTED BY
KARNATAKA
SMT. NAGARATNAMMA W/O SHIVANANDA
AGE: 53 YEARS R/O GOVT. OFFICIAL
R/O: BAIYAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR
DIST: RAICHUR-584127
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C (OLD) U/S 483
OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO RELEASE THE
ACCUSED/PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.CASE. (POCSO)
NO.305/2025 (CRIME.NO.236/2025 OF MANVI POLICE
STATION, DIST: RAICHUR), FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2877
CRL.P No. 200438 of 2026
HC-KAR
U/SEC.376 OF IPC AND U/SEC.4, 6 AND 17 OF POCSO ACT,
2012 AND U/SEC. 9 AND 10 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD
MARRIAGE ACT 2016, PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS & SPL. JUDGE AT RAICHUR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section
483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for
short, ‘BNSS, 2023’) for grant of bail, as the accused is in
judicial custody in Special Case (POCSO) No.305/2025 on
the file of I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions & Spl. Judge, Raichur.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is
innocent of the alleged offences against him. The
petitioner is falsely involved by respondent and there are
no other evidences to state that the petitioner is involved
in the above said offences, which is bad in law. The
complaint and statement of the victim does not disclose
any element of force, threat, coercion, or inducement,
which is a necessary ingredient for the alleged offence
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2877
CRL.P No. 200438 of 2026
HC-KAR
under Section 376 of IPC. The statement under Section
183 of BNSS clearly indicates that the relationship arose
out of a marriage performed on 30.06.2024, and no
allegation of force prior to marriage is made. The
relationship between the petitioner and the victim was
consensual in nature, and they are relatives known to each
other. The petitioner has not committed any offences
much less the alleged offences under Section 376 of IPC
and under Sections 4, 6 & 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 &
Sections 9 & 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2016.
The alleged offences are not punishable with death or life
imprisonment. The petitioner is suffering from lumar
lordosis with straightening of spine, early anterior
marginal osteophytes at L4 to L5 vertebra and mild
reduced disc space at L5-S1, and accordingly he is in need
of continuous medical care and he requires continuous
follow up treatment for the same. The age of the victim is
disputed. The school record is not supported by primary
documents like birth certificate or medical records. The
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2877
CRL.P No. 200438 of 2026
HC-KAR
victim girl was not minor when alleged offence was
committed on her. Entry in school was not correctly done
and not based on relevant document like date of birth
certificate from Municipality or certificate from Hospital.
The victim was a major, ingredient of sections 6 and 17 of
the POCSO Act are not attracted. The medical examination
report does not establish forcible sexual assault. The
prosecution case itself shows that the alleged physical
relationship occurred after a consensual marriage
ceremony and there is no allegation of force, threat,
coercion, or inducement. Consent between two majors,
even if wrongly interpreted, does not attract Section 6
POCSO, 2012. That under the Prohibition of Child Marriage
Act, only the male adult marrying a minor is punishable,
but this applies only when the girl is actually a minor.
When age is disputed and penal clauses cannot apply.
That the entire case is based on documentary and official
records and statements already recorded, hence there is
no possibility of tampering with prosecution evidence. The
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2877
CRL.P No. 200438 of 2026
HC-KAR
investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. No
further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.
Continued detention would amount to pre-trial
punishment, which is impermissible in law. The petitioner
was arrested on 14.10.2025 and remanded to judicial
custody. The petitioner submits that as per settled law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, bail is the rule and
jail is the exception, particularly where the investigation is
complete and the accused is not a habitual offender. The
petitioner is from respectable family member and if he was
detained behind bars then entire career will be at stake
and there is no criminal antecedent. The petitioner is
permanent resident of his locality and has immovable and
movable properties within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble
Court and having deep roots in the society. Hence, he
absconding from trial does not arise. The petitioner is
ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Hon’ble
Court and ready to abide any of the reasonable conditions
that may be imposed. No other case has been filed or
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2877
CRL.P No. 200438 of 2026
HC-KAR
pending before this Hon’ble High Court or any other court
seeking the relief sought in the petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the
petition and prays to allow the petition.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader
opposed to the bail petition and prays to dismiss the
petition.
5. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court.
6. On the basis of the complaint filed by Smt.
Nagarathnamma, Supervisor Child Development Project,
the respondent-Manvi Police have registered the case in
Crime No.236/2025 against the accused for the
commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC, Sections
4, 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act, 2012‘) and Section 9 and 10
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2877
CRL.P No. 200438 of 2026
HC-KAR
of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka
Amendment) Act, 2016. In column No.17 of the charge-
sheet it is stated as under:
“ಈ ೋ ಾ ೋಪ ೆ ಪತ ದ ಾಲಂ ನಂ 14 ರ ನಮೂ ದ ಾ
ನ 4 ರವರ ತಂ ೆ- ಾ ‘ಮೃತಪ !ದು# ಸದ %ಾ&ತಳ( ಈ
ೋ ಾ ೋಪ ೆ ಪತ ದ ಾಲಂ ನಂ 12 ರ ನಮೂ ದ ಆ ೋ*
ನಂ 4 ಮತು+ 5 ರವರ ,ೕಷ ೆಯ ದು#, %ಾಲ/ಯ ಜನ1 2ಾಂಕ
08-10-2007 ಇದು# ಅ6ಾ ಪ+ ವಯ 7ನ %ಾಲ/ ಅಂತ 8ೊ9+ದ#ರು
ಸಹ ಆ ೋ* ನಂ 2,3,4,5 ರವರು ಕೂ; ಆ ೋ* ನಂ 1 ರವರ
<ೊ ೆ ಾ ನಂ 4 ರವರನು= >ಾ?@ಾದ ಆ ೋ* ನಂ 6 ರವರ
ಸಮು1ಖದ 2ಾಂಕ 30-06-2024 ರಂದು %ೆB8ೆC, 11-00
ಗಂEೆ8ೆ FಾನG ಜುಮ1ಲ ೊ;Hಯ ರುವ ಮುತುIJಾ >ಾ
ದ8ಾIದ %ಾಲK GLಾಹ Fಾ; ದು# ಇರುತ+ ೆ. ಆ ೋ* ನಂ 1
ರವರು ಾ ನಂ 1 ರವರು ಅ6ಾ ಪ+ ವಯ 7ನ %ಾಲ/ ಅಂತ 8ೊ9+ದು#
ಸಹ ಅವಳನು= %ಾಲK GLಾಹLಾM 2ಾಂಕ 30-06-2024 ರಂದು
ಾ9 10-00 ಗಂEೆ8ೆ FಾನG Nಾ ಾ LಾK*+ಯ ಕರ;ಗುಡH 8ಾ ಮದ
ತಮ1 ಮ2ೆಯ … ಾ ನಂ 4 ರವ 8ೆ ಬಲವಂತLಾM QೈಂMಕ
ಅ ಾKSಾರ Fಾ;ದು# ಅಲ ೇ ಆ8ಾಗ ಾ9 LೇTೆಯ . QೈಂMಕ
ಅ ಾKSಾರ Fಾಡುತ+ ಬಂ ರು ಾ+2ೆ. ಇದ ಂದ ಅ6ಾ ಪ+ ವಯ 7ನ
ಾ ನಂ 4 ರವರು ಗUIV@ಾM 2ಾಂಕ 12-06-2025 ರಂದು
Wೆ 8ೆ@ಾM ಗಂಡು ಮಗುG8ೆ ಜನ1 Xೕ;ದು# ಇರುತ+ ೆ.
ಈ ಪ ಕರಣ ತX>ೆಯ ಆ ೋ*ತರ Gರುದ[ ಅಪ ಾಧ
ಾ]ೕ ಾMದು# ಇರುತ+ ೆ.
DgÉÆæ £ÀA.1 gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ PÀ®A “376 IPC ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
4 & 6 The Protection Of Children From Sexual
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2877
CRL.P No. 200438 of 2026HC-KAR
Offences (Pocso) Act-2012 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®A 9,10 The
Prohibition Of (Karnataka Amendment) Child
Marriage Act-2016 CrAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ಆ ೋ* ನಂ
2,3,4,5,6 ರವರ Gರುದ[ ಕಲಂ 17 The Protection Of
Children From Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act-2012
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 9,10 The Prohibition Of (Karnataka
Amendment) Child Marriage Act-2016 ಅ;ಯ ಈ
ೋ ಾ ೋಪ ೆ ಪತ ವನು= ಸ ಸQಾM ೆ.”
7. In the case on hand, the parents of the victim
or the victim have not lodged any complaint to the police.
The Investigating Officer has produced the school
certificate issued by the concerned school. The
Investigating Officer has not produced the birth
certificate/SSLC Marks Card/Ossification Test Certificate as
required under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. In view of the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
P.Yuvaprakash vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
[2023 LiveLaw (SC) 538] the school certificate is not
sufficient to assess the age of the victim. The victim is
having one year child. The Investigating Officer has
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2877
CRL.P No. 200438 of 2026
HC-KAR
already completed investigation and the accused is not
required for further custodial interrogation. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the relationship
between the accused and the victim, it is just and proper
to allow this petition with conditions.
8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The petitioner/accused is directed to be
released on bail in Spl.Case (POCSO)
No.305/2025 (Crime No.236/2025 of Manvi
Police Station, Dist. Raichur), subject to the
following conditions:
a) Petitioner shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with
one surety for the likesum, to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2877
CRL.P No. 200438 of 2026
HC-KAR
b) The petitioner shall appear regularly
on all the dates of hearing before the
Trial Court;
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
its prior permission.
The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to
the Trial Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
SDU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13
CT-BH
