Karnataka HC: Pre-Trial Custody Cannot Be Punitive; Grants Bail in POCSO Case

In a significant move emphasizing the principle that personal liberty should not be curtailed as a pre-trial punishment, the Karnataka High Court granted bail to an accused facing serious charges involving a minor, noting the completion of testimonies from critical witnesses.

Justice Tyagaraja N. Inavally, presiding over the Kalaburagi Bench, adjudicated upon the criminal petition filed under Section 483 of the BNSS 2023. The petitioner sought enlargement on bail in a pending special case involving allegations of kidnapping and sexual assault under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court observed that with the victim and her parents already examined, the risk of witness tampering was substantially mitigated.

Court's Rationale on Pre-trial Detention

The Court underscored the legal standard for bail, highlighting that the accused had already spent eleven months in judicial custody. The Bench found that the prosecution failed to provide special grounds to justify continued incarceration during the trial process.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Moreover it is well settled principle of law that the accused cannot be allowed to be in judicial custody at pre-trial stage as punishment. Any apprehensions of the prosecution can be suitably met with by imposing stringent conditions on the petitioner making him to assist the trial Court in further trial of the case."

Nature of the Relationship and Trial Progress

While noting the victim's age was approximately 15 years and 3 months at the time of the incident, the Court took cognizance of the petitioner's argument regarding a consensual love affair. Given that the material witnesses had already supported the prosecution's case in court, the Bench concluded that the petitioner's presence was no longer required in custody to ensure a fair trial.

The Court has the following directions:

"(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on all the dates of hearing without fail;

(ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or hamper the further trial of the case;

(iii) He shall not commit similar offences in future; and

(iv) He shall assist the Trial Court to dispose of the case at the earliest."

Background:

The dispute originated from an incident in July 2025, when a minor girl went missing from her home in Bidar district. Investigation by the Santhapur police revealed that the girl had allegedly eloped with the petitioner, her neighbour, after a long-standing romantic relationship. It was alleged that the petitioner took the victim to Hyderabad and Linganpete, where he repeatedly committed sexual intercourse against her will. Following their discovery by the police on July 15, 2025, the petitioner was arrested and charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Section 137(2) and Section 64(2)(m), alongside stringent provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The State opposed the bail plea, arguing that some witnesses had supported the prosecution and that no grounds existed for release. However, the High Court determined that since the trial had progressed significantly and the petitioner had been in custody for nearly a year, he deserved to be enlarged on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 and two sureties.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200617 OF 2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:KHC-K:4411
Case Title: BALAJI @ SUNDAR S/O MADAPPA SAGAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): SRI. SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent(s): SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KAR) 202