Case at a glance: In an anticipatory bail matter, the Karnataka High Court disapproved of an Investigating Officer independently recording a further statement of a victim after her statement had already been recorded by a Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court said that if a further statement is needed, the victim must be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and it granted the petitioner anticipatory bail.
An FIR dated 22 January 2026 was registered for kidnapping under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita on the complaint of a girl's mother. Police traced the girl, who on 29 January 2026 gave a statement before a Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS, saying she had left home voluntarily after being scolded and stayed at a Darga for three days.
On 12 February 2026 the Investigating Officer himself recorded a “further statement” from her alleging sexual assault by the petitioner. A charge sheet under the BNS and the POCSO Act followed against the petitioner and relatives, and the petitioner sought anticipatory bail.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can an Investigating Officer independently record a victim's further statement after her statement has already been recorded by a Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS?
Why the Magistrate Route Matters
As reported, the Court held that even if the Investigating Officer needed a further statement, he ought to have produced the victim before the jurisdictional Magistrate for recording it, and could not have proceeded to record it independently. The Court observed that the sanctity of a statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 183 had been frustrated by the officer's practice, which it said could not be appreciated.
On that footing the Court granted anticipatory bail, subject to a bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties on arrest, appearance before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, regular attendance before the trial court, no tampering with witnesses and cooperation with the investigation.
What the Court Actually Held
- An Investigating Officer cannot independently record a victim's further statement after her Section 183 BNSS statement was recorded by a Magistrate.
- If a further statement is needed, the victim must be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
- The Court disapproved of the practice as frustrating the sanctity of the Section 183 statement.
- Anticipatory bail was granted on stated conditions.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects the evidentiary weight of Magistrate-recorded victim statements under the new BNSS regime.
- It gives the defence a ground to challenge later police-recorded statements that contradict a Section 183 statement.
- It sends investigators a clear procedural message for sexual-offence and POCSO cases.
- It is a bail-stage order and appears to disapprove the practice rather than quash the statement or the charge sheet, so its reach should be read carefully.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Defence Counsel
- Compare the dates and contents of the Section 183 statement and any later police statement in the case diary.
- Raise the issue in bail, discharge and cross-examination where a later statement departs from the Magistrate-recorded one.
For Prosecutors and Investigating Officers
- Take any further victim statement through the jurisdictional Magistrate after a Section 183 statement has been recorded.
Key Takeaways
- After a victim's Section 183 BNSS statement, the Investigating Officer cannot independently record a further statement.
- A further statement should be recorded by producing the victim before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
- The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail with conditions.
- The order is at the bail stage and its wider effect on the charge sheet should be checked in the full judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
The ruling is about a further statement after a Magistrate has recorded one under Section 183 BNSS; in that situation the victim should be produced before the Magistrate.
Not as far as the reports indicate. The order disapproves the practice and grants anticipatory bail; the full judgment should be checked.
A bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties on arrest, appearance before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, regular attendance before the trial court, no tampering with witnesses and cooperation with the investigation.
Conclusion
The decision protects the integrity of the Magistrate-recorded statement by routing any later statement back through the Magistrate rather than the police station.
Practical takeaway: Treat the sequence of statements as a key part of the record: a police-recorded further statement taken after a Section 183 statement deserves immediate scrutiny.