'Serious Allegations': Karnataka High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Lawyer Accused Of Rape, Caste-Based Abuse
The Karnataka High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a practicing advocate accused of repeated rape, unnatural sexual assault, and caste-based abuse, observing that the allegations were serious in nature required an investigation.
The court noted that it was also alleged that there were private videos, Phone pay transactions, financial records, lodge registers, digital photographs, WhatsApp messages, which had to be investigated.
Justice Rajeshwari N. Hegde was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging the trial court order that had rejected his anticipatory bail plea.
“Looking into the allegations in the complaint filed by the victim/respondent No.2, as there are serious allegations made against this appellant and having regard to the objections filed by the respondent No. 1 as well the victim/respondent No.2, and looking into the gravity of the offence as it is alleged that, the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 377 of IPC as well the offences under the SC & ST Act, further it is stated that there are private videos, Phone pay transactions, financial records, lodge registers, digital photographs, WhatsApp messages, all these have to be investigated by the Investigating Officer and further, as the allegation against the accused/appellant is serious in nature, for these reasons this Court is of the opinion that, the accused/appellant is not entitled to grant anticipatory bail,” the High Court said.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Background
The case originated from a complaint lodged at the Shahapura Police Station. According to the complainant, the accused, a practicing advocate, visited the complainant's house in January 2024 where he allegedly committed forcible sexual intercourse. The complainant alleged that the appellant subsequently blackmailed her, committed unnatural sexual offences, clicked her private photos and videos, and hurled caste-based abuses.
Following the registration of the complaint under Sections 376(2)(n)(committing rape repeatedly on the same woman), 377(Unnatural offences), 504, and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), (ii), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the appellant-accused approached the trial court, seeking anticipatory bail. The Sessions Court rejected the application, leading to the present criminal appeal before the High Court.
The accused claimed the complaint to be fabricated and argued that the “false” case was filed against him as the complainant failed to repay the loan advance by him. He also submitted that there was an unexplained delay of over two years in lodging the complaint.