Karnataka High Court: In a criminal appeal filed by the accused seeking regular bail in offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 64 read with Section 3(5) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST (POA) Act’), the Single-Judge Bench of the S Rachaiah, J., noting that the act committed by the accused along with the co-accused will remain in as a scar in victim’s life rejected the bail application. The Court held that the facilitation of rape of the victim was a heinous offence and granting bail would not secure the confidence of young women and the public at large.
Background
On 02-04-2025 the 19-year-old victim lodged a complaint. While she and her cousin brother were proceeding travelling form Kerala to Bengaluru, they were restrained and assaulted. The co-accused took the victim to a nearby place and had sexual intercourse with her while the accused held on to her cousin. The victim cried for help, and the public started gathering. Both the accused persons attempted to escape upon seeing the public, but one was caught and taken into custody by the police. A case was registered against both, and the police subsequently submitted the charge-sheet after investigation.
The accused filed present criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act seeking regular bail for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 64 read with Section 3(5) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
Analysis and Decision
The Court, after hearing the counsel and perusing the record, noted that the accused had facilitated the co-accused in committing the said offence by holding down the victim’s cousin. The Court observed that the manner in which the accused had committed the offence against the victim is considered as heinous in nature. He had an intention to commit rape on the victim. However, in the meantime, the public started gathering at the scene of the occurrence. Hence, one of the accused ran away from the spot.
The Court outlined the settled principles of law, or parameters, required to be fulfilled while granting bail:
-
The nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
-
Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
-
Prima-facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
The Court noted that while the personal life and liberty of a person are recognized as fundamental rights, such a right has to be exercised sparingly with utmost care and caution. The Court observed that the accused and the co-accused had committed a heinous offence against an adolescent girl who dreamt about her future and also aimed towards her life and its goal. The act committed would remain in her life as a scar, and it would be very difficult for her to come out of the agony. The Court rejected the bail by dismissing the appeal.
[Syed Parveez Mushraff v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1493 of 2025, decided on 04-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Naushad Pasha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Pushpalatha, Addl. SPP for R1