Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 13396
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
SRI. WALTER D’SOUZA @ SANTHOSH G. – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY WEST WOMEN POLICE STATION BENGALURU – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8423 OF 2025 | 439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. HALEEMA AMEEN
For the Respondents: SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA
The law does not apply retroactively to actions prior to its enforcement; bail granted based on this principle.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail - Accused sought bail for offences under Sections 69, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 - Consent established in the relationship and allegations being prior to effective date of the statute - Conditions for bail imposed. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 6, 7)
(B) Point of law - Applicability of statute - Court observed that the alleged offences occurred before the enforcement of Section 69 BNS 2023 and hence prima facie not applicable.
Facts of the case:
The complainant and petitioner shared a consensual relationship for over eight years, with allegations stemming from events prior to the enforcement of the relevant statute.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner may be granted bail given the specifics of the case surrounding consensual acts and statutory timelines.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was the applicability of the new law to actions taken before its enforcement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the alleged incident occurred before the statute's effectiveness, the accused was entitled to bail under the circumstances presented.
Result: Petition allowed.
Key Points: - The court notes that the alleged incident occurred on 18.06.2022, prior to the enforcement of Section 69, BNS, 2023 (came into force 01.07.2024) (!) . - The court held that Section 69 BNS, 2023 would prima facie not be applicable to the alleged incident due to timing, and bail could be granted with conditions (!) . - The petition was allowed, and the accused was granted bail with specified conditions (personal bond, surety, non-tampering with witnesses, regular appearance, biweekly attendance, no leaving jurisdiction) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The matter notes that the charge sheet has been filed and is pending adjudication in CC No. 19491/2025 (!) . - The relationship between complainant and accused was consensual for over eight years, with acts alleged to be prior to the statute's enforcement (!) (!) . - The respondent contends guilt under Section 69, but the court finds prima facie applicability unlikely due to timing (!) (!) . - The decision emphasizes that subsequent enforcement dates affect applicability of new statutes to pre-enforcement acts (!) . - The order is an oral order granting bail with conditions (!) (!) . - The court acknowledges the accused as breadwinner and considers innocence arguments, but bases bail on timing and consent aspects (!) (!) .
Question 1?
What is the applicability of the BNS, 2023 Section 69 to offences alleged to have occurred prior to its enforcement?
Question 2?
What is the appropriate bail framework or conditions for an accused where the alleged offence occurred before the enforcement of the new statute?
Question 3?
What are the rights of the accused regarding bail when the statute under which charges are framed came into force after the alleged acts?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case regarding bail application. (Para 1) |
| 2. nature of relationship and allegations. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding applicability of section. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's observations on sexual consent. (Para 6) |
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail by the petitioner, who is an accused in Crime No.53/2025 registered by the 1st respondent – Police for offences punishable under Sections 69 , 351(2) of BNS, 2023 .
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant knew the petitioner since 8 years i.e., from 2016 and that both of them were in love with each other and petitioner – accused on the pretext of marrying the complainant, induced her to have sexual intercourse in the year 2022 and thereafter, he left Bangalore and went to Singapore. During August, 2024, when the complainant tried to call the petitioner, his sister picked up the call and told that the name of the petitioner was Walter D’Souza and not Santhosh. When the complainant sent the photographs of the petitioner to the sister of the petitioner, she confirmed the name of the petitioner. When the complainant questioned about the same, the petitioner threatened her with dire consequences. Based on the same, the complainant filed a complaint, which was registered as an FIR in Crime No.53/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 69 , 351(2) of BNS, 2023 .
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.SPP for the respondent and perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged and that the BNS, 2023 including Section 69 came into force on 01.07.2024 and Section 69 is a substantive provision and would not apply to the offences committed prior to Section 69 coming into force. It is further submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him and he is the only bread earner of the family and therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.
5. Learned Addl.SPP for the respondent – State submits that the petitioner is guilty of the offences punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023 , on the ground that he had sexual intercourse with the complainant – 2nd respondent on 18.06.2022 before he left Bengaluru and went to Singapore. He therefore submits that the petitioner is not entitled for bail and that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the relationship of the complainant with the petitioner – accused was for more than Eight years and the sexual intercourse between them was consensual one and that for the last two years, the petitioner refused to marry 2nd respondent. It is noticed that even according to the complainant, the alleged incident occurred on 18.06.2022, much prior to Section 69 of BNS, 2023 , which came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2024, thereby prima – facie indicating that the said provision would not be applicable to the alleged incident or the petitioner or the offences alleged against him. After investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet, which is pending adjudication before the Trial Court in C.C.No.19491/2025. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to be enlarged on bail by imposing certain conditions. 7. Accordingly, the petition is herebyallowed. The petitioner-accused is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
(iii) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly and as and when required.
(iv) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the SHO of the concerned Police Station between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., once
