'Offence Is Horrendous, Heinous': Karnataka High Court Upholds Cancellation Of Rape Accused's Bail For Threatening Survivor, Family

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (January 30) upheld a sessions court order cancelling a man's bail, who is accused of raping a minor in 2024, after he allegedly threatened the survivor and her family while out on bail. 

In doing so, the high court said that the offence was "heinous and horrendous" and the trial court order warranted no interference. The petitioner had moved the high court against cancellation of bail on the ground that he had threatened the survivor and her family. 

After hearing the matter, Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order dictated:

"Copious evidence is placed before the concerned court for filing application seeking cancellation of bail. The concerned court by a detailed order rendering cogent reasons cancelled the bail of the petitioner. The offence is horrendous, heinous. Therefore the cancellation of the bail, on the score that the petitioner has threatened the witness would not warrant any interference".

At the outset the court orally questioned as to how the man was granted bail in the first place. "How was bail granted to this man? It is not an offence to grant bail at all...You have indulged in rape of a minor in the car," the court orally said. 

The petitioner's counsel submitted that she had turned major after that, and that there had also been a settlement in the case. He said that the bail was granted in 2024, while the present allegation was made in 2025. He also said that after turning major, the survivor had not complained. 

The court however orally remarked, "Bail itself could not have been granted. For an offence of this nature you should not have been brought out at all...You have intoxicated her and done everything...Merely because victim does not complain, would not mask the offence...". 

As the counsel said that there the petitioner may be granted bail on imposition of strict conditions the court orally said, "For this offence, I'm surprised that trial court has granted bail...It is is shocking. Horrendous offence. You are 38-year-old man, married. And this minor you have indulged in...". 

The petitioner's counsel said that the survivor's evidence was also recorded and there was no case of inducement or anything else. The court however said that sessions court order was reasoned. 

The petitioner's counsel thereafter submitted that a direction be issued for conclusion of trial as the evidence of the victim is already over. 

"Concerned court shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law within the statutory limit prescribed under the POCSO Act. Ordered accordingly," the court directed. 

The plea was disposed of. 

Case title: RAJANNA D @ RAJU v/s STATE AND ANOTHER

CRL.P 16751/2025