The High Court of Karnataka on September 4, 2025, dismissed a criminal appeal and denied regular bail to a man accused of facilitating the rape of a 19-year-old woman. Justice S Rachaiah, presiding over the case, observed that the accused had committed a “heinous offence against an adolescent girl” and that granting bail would be inappropriate given the severity of the crime.
The appeal was filed by the appellant, identified as accused No. 2, under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He sought bail in Crime No. 205/2025, registered by the Mahadevapura Police Station, for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the SC/ST (POA) Act.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the case originated from a complaint lodged on April 2, 2025, at approximately 3:30 a.m. by the 19-year-old victim. The complainant stated that she had travelled from Kerala and arrived at the K.R. Puram railway station in Bengaluru around 1:30 a.m. on the same day.
As she and her cousin brother were proceeding towards Mahadevapura to find food, they were wrongfully restrained and assaulted by two individuals. The prosecution alleged that one of the accused took the victim to a nearby location and committed sexual intercourse. The appellant was accused of holding the victim’s cousin brother to facilitate the crime. When the victim cried for help, members of the public gathered, leading to the capture of one accused, while the other fled. The police subsequently arrived, took the apprehended individual into custody, and registered a case against two persons. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant, Sri. Naushad Pasha, argued that his client was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He contended that the appellant, accused No. 2, did not commit rape. Citing the statements on record, the counsel submitted that the appellant’s alleged role was limited to holding the victim’s cousin brother (C.W.2), while accused No. 1 was the individual who allegedly committed sexual intercourse. On this basis, he prayed for the appellant to be enlarged on bail.
Opposing the appeal, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, Smt. Pushpalatha, argued that accused No. 2 played a direct role by holding the victim’s cousin and continuously threatening him, thereby facilitating the commission of rape by accused No. 1. The prosecutor submitted that the manner in which the accused behaved “creates doubt in the mind of the women as to whether they really got independence or not.” She urged the court to reject the bail application to secure confidence in the minds of young women and the public at large.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After hearing both parties and perusing the trial court’s findings, Justice S Rachaiah noted that the appellant had facilitated the primary accused in committing the offence. The judgment described the offence as “heinous in nature” and stated that the appellant “had an intention to commit rape on the victim.”
The Court outlined the settled principles for considering bail applications, which include the nature of the accusation, the severity of punishment, the nature of supporting evidence, and the reasonable apprehension of witness tampering. The judgment acknowledged that personal life and liberty are fundamental rights but must be “exercised sparingly with utmost care and caution.”
Justice Rachaiah observed that the act committed by the accused “will remain in her life as a scar” and it would be very difficult for the victim to overcome the agony.
In his judgment, the judge quoted from Manusmriti: “Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra Devata, yatraitaastu na pujyante sarvaastatrafalaah kriyaah,” explaining it means, “where women are honored, divinity blossoms there, and where women are dishonored, all actions, no matter how noble, remain unfruitful.”
The Court also invoked a saying by Mahatma Gandhiji on freedom: “The day a woman can walk freely on the road at night, that day we can say that India has achieved independence.”
Concluding that it was appropriate to reject the bail, the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal.
