Rape accused not eligible for bail on grounds of being government employee : Karnataka High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9831 2021 BETWEEN: SRINIVAS MURTHY H.N. S O. N.B. NAGENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R AT NO.106 BEHIND JAMES SCHOOL 5TH CROSS MARIYAPPA LAYOUT AVALHALL BENGALURU 560 049. AND ALSO AT VEDIGERI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. … PETITIONER BY SRI KEMPARAJU ADVOCATE) STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION BENGALURU DISTRICT REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU 560 001. BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR HCGP) … RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.288 2021 OF KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376 420 506 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS ‘THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner accused No.1 in Crime No.288 2021 of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station Subramanyapura Sub Division Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Sections 376 420 and 506 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State. The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner on 14.09.2021 took the victim girl to Athithi Comforts Room No.101 to have food and subjected her for sexual act as against her wish even though her marriage was already engaged with some other person. After committing the said act he promised that he would marry her and not to disclose the same to anyone and if she disclose the same to family members he will take away her life. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is working as Assistant Executive Engineer in KPTCL and false case has been registered against him since he is a Government employee and there is a delay of 1½ months in lodging the complaint. The alleged incident has taken place on 14.09.2021 and complaint was lodged on 03.11.2021 and no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner and he has been in custody from 14.11.2021. The counsel would also submit that the victim is running 23 years 10 months and there was no force and this petitioner is aged about 25 years and if he is continued in custody it affects his carrier. Hence he may be enlarged on Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State would submit that in 164 statement the victim girl has categorically stated before the learned Magistrate that she was subjected to sexual act forcibly and also caused life threat. He would also submit that CWs.5 and 6 who are employees of Home stay confirm petitioner bringing the victim girl to room. Apart from that the medical evidence is also clear that she was subjected to sexual act and subjecting her for sexual act is not ruled out and hence there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record particularly 164 statement of the victim girl it is seen that she has stated that she was subjected to sexual act against her wish and also caused life threat. She has also stated that her marriage was already engaged with other bridegroom and hence after committing the sexual Court he promised that he would marry and also caused life threat. Apart from that medical evidence is also clear that hymen was tear and opinion of the doctor is also clear that she was subjected to sexual act and material collected not rules out subjecting her for sexual act. When such being the material available on record the fact that petitioner is a Government employee is not a ground to enlarge him on bail when serious offence of rape is alleged against the petitioner. Prima facie the medical evidence as well as the 164 statement disclose that the fact that victim was subjected to sexual act. In view of the discussions made above I pass the The Criminal Petition is rejected. Sd JUDGE 

Summary: An accused charged of an offence of as serious nature as rape was denied bail on the grounds of him being a government employee was upheld by High Court of Karnataka through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HP SANDESH  in the case of Srinivas Murthy H.N v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Petition No.-9831 of 2021). Brief facts of the case are that in September 2021, accused took the victim to a house to eat and assaulted her sexually over there having knowledge she was engaged to someone else. After committing the crime, he promised to marry her and threatened to kill her if he disclosed the incident to family. The accused, Assistant Executive Engineer at Karnataka Electricity Corporation Limited, who was arrested and was charged with offenses punishable under sections 376 , 420 and 506 of the IPC.Presently, the accused has approached this court for grant of bail. The counsel for petitioner contended that the accused was working as Assistant Administrative Engineer at KTPCL and this case was brought against him. Moreover, the complaint was made one and a half months after the alleged incident. It was claimed that the victim was 23 years old and 10 months old and there was no coercion. The counsel for respondent contended that present application for bail should be rejected because, in her statement under section 164 of CrPC before the Magistrate, she said that she had been subjected to involuntary sexual activity and was threatened with her life. The medical report also included evidence of sexual activity. Both employees of the house confirmed what they saw as the accused brought the woman to her room. The Karnataka High Court held that being a government employee cannot be a reason to bail a person accused of a serious crime such as rape. The court rejected the bail request on the grounds that the victim’s statement revealed that she had been subjected to sexual acts against her will after he threatened her with her life. Moreover, the medical evidence revealed that there was a tear in the hymen and that the doctor who examined the victim also stated that he had been subjected to sexual intercourse.