Delay of Two Years in Lodging FIR Remains Unexplained — No Justification for Further Custody: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail

“Accused Not Required for Custodial Interrogation, Chargesheet Not Filed Within 60 Days — Continued Detention Violates Procedural Fairness”: In a judgment of considerable procedural importance Karnataka High Court, presided by Justice G. Basavaraja, allowed a criminal appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, granting bail to the appellant Kiran R, who had been in judicial custody following serious allegations of sexual assault and offences under multiple statutes, including the BNSS, 2023, IT Act, and the SC/ST Act.

The court set aside the 03 October 2025 order of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, which had rejected the appellant’s bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The High Court noted a conspicuous delay of nearly two years in lodging the complaint and observed that no chargesheet had been filed even after 60 days of arrest, thus rendering further incarceration unjustified.

“Complaint Lodged Two Years After Alleged Offence — Investigating Agency Silent on Delay”: Court Cites Procedural Lapse to Grant Bail

The crux of the appellant’s case rested on the unexplained delay in filing the FIR and the lack of prosecutorial progress after his arrest. The court found merit in the argument that the FIR, filed on 04 September 2025, alleged incidents dating back to June 2023, and yet, the complaint had remained unreported until after a personal fallout.

As per the FIR, the complainant — a colleague at a car showroom — alleged that the accused had repeatedly committed sexual offences against her, including in isolated areas and a private lodge. However, the High Court observed:

“There is an abnormal delay of two years in filing this complaint. The investigating officer has already arrested the accused and he is in custody. Accused is not required for any further investigation.”

Additionally, the prosecution had not complied with Rule 7(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which mandates filing of the charge sheet within 60 days from the date of arrest. The delay was unexplained and unsupported by any affidavit or extension order from a superior officer.

“Sessions Court Erred in Refusing Bail Despite Lack of Investigative Progress and Absence of Fresh Material”

The High Court also noted that post-arrest, no further incriminating material was recovered or discovered. The car and mobile phone of the accused had been seized, but the police had not found anything that corroborated the complainant's allegations. Justice Basavaraja remarked:

“There are no incriminating materials collected by the investigating officer after the apprehension of the appellant to corroborate the theory of the complainant.”

He also referenced earlier judgments such as Sampras Anthony v. State of Karnataka (WP No. 31144 of 2024) and Nitin v. State of Karnataka (Cr.P. No. 9734 of 2024), reinforcing the principle that bail should not be denied solely on gravity when procedural safeguards are violated and continued custody is unproductive.

The appellant’s counsel argued that the complaint was filed as an afterthought, emerging from interpersonal conflicts and alleged attempts to extort money. The complainant, her sister, and brother-in-law were accused of blackmailing the appellant over personal disputes at the workplace, and it was only when he refused to yield that the FIR was registered.

“Investigation Delayed, Accused Not Needed in Custody — Bail Conditions Can Safeguard Trial”: High Court Orders Release

Considering the facts that the accused had been arrested, was no longer needed for interrogation, and the charge sheet remained pending, the High Court ruled in favour of bail. It also noted that bail was not being granted on merits of innocence, but due to procedural irregularities and failure of timely investigation, particularly under the SC/ST (PoA) Act and Rule 7(2).

The court imposed specific conditions: “Appellant shall be released on bail upon executing a self-bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of like sum. He shall not tamper with witnesses or indulge in similar offences.”

Justice Basavaraja emphasized that these conditions were sufficient to ensure that the accused does not obstruct the trial or intimidate the complainant.

This judgment underscores the Karnataka High Court’s commitment to balancing individual liberty with procedural integrity. While reaffirming the seriousness of allegations under the SC/ST Act and related sexual offences, the court made it clear that delay in FIR, lack of custodial necessity, and breach of statutory timelines for charge-sheeting must be weighed while deciding bail applications.

“When the prosecution fails to proceed within the timelines set under law and offers no explanation, the rights of the accused to a fair pre-trial process must be preserved,” the court held.

Date of Decision: 13 November 2025