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.
Judgement reviewed by- Bhaswati Goldar