Accused Has No Criminal Antecedents: Karnataka High Court Rejects State's 'Habitual Stalker' Claim, Grants Bail Under Section 483 BNSS

"The offences are triable by the Sessions Court, they do not prescribe punishment for life imprisonment or death. The maximum punishment as submitted is only five years. Accused-petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is stated to be married and having children carrying on coolie work for his livelihood." Karnataka High Court, in an order dated August 19, 2026, ruled that prosecutorial claims branding an accused as a habitual offender cannot override the absence of formal criminal antecedents when determining regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

A single-judge bench of Justice M.G.S. Kamal granted bail to a daily-wage worker accused of sexual harassment and outraging modesty under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), holding that allegations of past unrecorded encounters cannot substitute for tangible criminal records.

The petitioner was arrested on July 10, 2026, following a complaint alleging that he had inappropriately touched a woman passenger while boarding a KSRTC bus from State Bank Bus Stand in Mangalore and gestured for her to sit with him. The complainant also alleged that the petitioner had engaged in similar obscene behavior towards her two months prior in the same bus, an incident she had not reported at the time out of fear. Following his arrest and the dismissal of his regular bail application by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking enlargement on bail.

The primary question before the High Court was whether unsubstantiated prosecutorial assertions of habitual offending and alleged past unverified conduct can justify the continued pre-trial detention of an accused under Section 483 BNSS where the maximum punishment does not exceed five years and the accused possesses no prior criminal antecedents.

State Alleges Habitual Stalking Based On Unreported Past Encounter

The prosecution strongly resisted the bail plea under Section 483 BNSS, contending that the complainant’s statement clearly depicted the accused as a habitual offender who continuously accosted the victim. The State argued that the petitioner had admitted in his voluntary statement to being in the habit of stalking women, raising serious apprehension that his release would lead to repeat offences and witness tampering.

Prosecutorial Assertions Cannot Substitute For Formal Criminal Records

The High Court scrutinized the records and observed that the allegations regarding an encounter two months prior were never reported to the authorities when they supposedly transpired. The bench emphasized that while evaluating the necessity of custodial detention, the absence of registered criminal antecedents holds significant weight against informal claims of recurrent offending.

The bench noted that the offences invoked under Sections 74 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage modesty), 75 (sexual harassment), and 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty) of the BNS do not entail capital punishment or life imprisonment, carrying a statutory maximum term of up to five years.

Socio-Economic Factors And Liberty Under Section 483 BNSS

Taking into consideration the socio-economic standing of the petitioner, the bench observed that he is a married individual supporting his wife and children through daily-wage manual labor. The Court underscored that continued judicial custody was unwarranted given the nature of the allegations and the absence of any prior convictions or pending criminal charges.

Stringent Conditions Imposed To Safeguard Trial Integrity

To balance the petitioner’s personal liberty with the prosecution’s apprehension of potential recidivism, the High Court imposed stringent conditions rather than sustaining pre-trial incarceration. The Court directed the petitioner to execute a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two local sureties of like sum, mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer every fortnight on alternate Sundays until the charge-sheet is filed, refrain from tampering with witnesses, refrain from committing similar offences in the future, and not leave the Sessions Court's jurisdiction without prior leave.

Allowing the petition under Section 483 BNSS, the High Court established that oral allegations of past misbehavior cannot be elevated to the status of criminal antecedents to curtail personal liberty in non-capital offences. The ruling reaffirms that pre-trial detention cannot serve as punitive custody when an accused has clean antecedents and the charged offences carry limited custodial terms.

Date of Decision: 19 August 2026