Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Karnataka High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Public Prosecutor Accused Of Raping Law Intern

Mustafa Plumber
21 Dec 2021 8:02 AM GMT
Karnataka High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Public Prosecutor Accused Of Raping Law Intern
x

The Karnataka High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Special Public Prosecutor K S N Rajesh accused of sexual assault and attempt to rape by a law student working in his office. A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while dismissing the petition said, "The petitioner is a practising advocate and said to be having influence in Police, University and Judges, such...

The Karnataka High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Special Public Prosecutor K S N Rajesh accused of sexual assault and attempt to rape by a law student working in his office.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while dismissing the petition said, "The petitioner is a practising advocate and said to be having influence in Police, University and Judges, such being the case this Court does not intend to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner."

The accused had approached the court after a case seeking anticipatory bail in two offences registered against him with the Mangalore woman police station. In one case he is charged under sections 376, 376(2)(f),376(2)(k), 376(c), 511, 354(A), 354(B), 354(D), 506, 384, 388, 389 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

 Petitioners arguments:

Advocate Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira appearing for the petitioner said that, "On perusal of records especially the statement of the complaint does not attract the provisions of Section 376 of IPC and also 354 of IPC and also subsection (a) (b) (c) and (d) even otherwise the alleged allegation against the petitioner under Section 376 of IPC is attempt to commit rape which is not punishable by death or imprisonment and also Section 354 of IPC is punishable with only three years, even the ingredients if it is attracted there is a delay in lodging the complaint."

Further, it was contended that, "The CCTV footage already said to be destroyed as per the victim but it can be retrieved. The voice sample also can be taken during the investigation. The medical examination was also conducted when he appeared before the police. Such being the case the petitioner may not be required for any custodial interrogation."

Prosecution opposed the plea:

Advocate H S Shankar appearing for the prosecution contended that, "The petitioner is required for cross examination, custodial interrogation, seize his mobile for recovering video clippings and CCTV footage and he is said to be involved in bribing the police officers as well as the judges. The offences are a heinous one and that he is an influential person he may destroy the evidence if granted anticipatory bail."

Court findings:

On going through the complaint the court said, "Of course the learned counsel submits that the offence under Section 376 of IPC is not made out but the contents of the complainant reveals that the petitioner made an attempt to commit rape and the student victim girl is internship in the office but because of the early erection he was unable to have intercourse with her otherwise he could have committed rape."

It added that "The petitioner-accused also misused the situation of the innocent victim girl, he had exploited his position by touching her body inappropriately comes within the meaning of Section 354 and 376 read with 511 of IPC. Even showing the video graph and trying to molest her utilizing her weakness as a student when she was doing internship and working under him amounts to ingredients made out in the IPC shows it is an attempt to commit rape on her."

The court also opined that, "As contended by the learned counsel he may be available for the investigation but that is not enough he may be required for the custodial interrogation in respect of collecting the video clipping, seizure of mobile phone retrieving the video graph and even for recording the voice sample comparison and sending it to the FSL and seizing the CCTV footage from the office of the petitioner. Therefore though the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment with life but the allegation made by the victims in both cases are serious in nature."

Case Title: KSN Rajesh v. State of Karnataka

Case no: Criminal Petition 8596/2021

Date of Order: December 4, 2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order


Next Story