Bengaluru, July 5, 2022 – The LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH. No. 71), Sri Prakash V., has dismissed the regular bail petition filed by Devaraja, the primary accused, in a highly sensitive case involving allegations of rape, physical assault, and caste-based atrocity. The court ruled that there was a strong prima facie case against the petitioner, and his release at this stage would likely pose a threat to the complainant and the integrity of the trial.

The petitioner, Devaraja, aged 32, had sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 14/2022 registered by the Gangammagudi Police Station. The charges against him and four others (Accused No. 1 to 5) are exceptionally grave, punishable under Sections 376 (Rape), 344 (Wrongful confinement), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult), 506 (Criminal intimidation), 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) read with 34 of the IPC, along with multiple sections of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, specifically Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (w), and (i).

Details of the Prosecution’s Case

The charge sheet filed by the police provided a disturbing narrative of the events spanning over a decade. The facts presented indicate:

• Initial Contact and Rape: The victim, Smt. Ranjitha, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, came into contact with Devaraja (Accused No. 1) around 2011. One day, the petitioner allegedly lured the complainant to a forest-like area on his motorcycle under the false pretext that his sister was calling her. There, he allegedly committed “forcible sexual intercourse against her will.”
• False Promise and Continued Exploitation: Following the rape, Devaraja promised to marry the victim. The physical relationship continued, leading the victim (CW1) to conceive and give birth to a male child.
• Pressurizing Prostitution: The charge sheet further detailed that the petitioner was “also pressurizing the complainant to have sexual relationship with other persons.”
• Recent Assault and Caste Abuse: The sequence of events culminated recently. On January 26, 2022, at 6:30 p.m., the petitioner called the complainant near Abbigere Park, where he, along with Accused No. 2 and 3, allegedly assaulted her and “insulted her by taking the name of her caste.”

Petitioner’s Grounds for Bail

The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated. The main arguments presented for seeking bail included:

• Consensual Relationship: It was argued that the allegations concerning the sexual relationship, given its duration and the birth of a child, were consensual in nature and did not amount to rape.
• Delay in Complaint: A central claim was the “inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 10-11 years in lodging the complaint,” which was used to suggest that the complaint was an afterthought, fabricated to extract money or settle scores.
• SC/ST Act Applicability: The defense contested the applicability of the SC/ST Act, arguing there was no prima facie case as the petitioner allegedly lacked knowledge of the complainant’s caste, and the alleged abuse was not made in public view with the required intention to insult.
• Lack of Custodial Necessity: Since the police had already filed the charge sheet, further judicial custody amounted to “pre-trial conviction” and was not warranted.

Strong Opposition from Complainant and Prosecutor

The complainant (Respondent No. 2), through her counsel, Smt. YLM., vehemently opposed the petition, contending that the grounds raised were fabricated. She asserted that if the petitioner was released, he might use “political influence” and “investing huge amount/finance support” to destroy evidence and threaten witnesses. The complainant’s objection also alleged that the petitioner was involved in illegal activities, including forcing women into prostitution, and that he had recently “severely attacked” her and threatened her with dire consequences during the pendency of the bail petition.

The Special Public Prosecutor echoed these concerns, emphasizing the gravity of the offences and the high risk that Devaraja would abscond, tamper with witnesses, and pose a life threat to the complainant and other witnesses.

Court’s Reasoning for Dismissal

The court found the arguments put forth by the prosecution and the complainant to be “well founded.” The Judge focused on the limitations of a bail proceeding and the strong prima facie case established by the charge sheet.

• Prima Facie Case: The court specifically noted that the charge sheet contained a “specific overt act against petitioner for committing the offence of rape against the will of the victim and also pressurizing the complainant to have sexual relationship with others.” The court found that a clear prima facie case was made out.
• Delay Argument Invalid at Bail Stage: Addressing the core defense argument regarding the 11-year delay, the Judge clarified: “It is impermissible for this court to consider the merits of the case” while considering bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The court’s limited jurisdiction is to consider the possibility of tampering with witnesses and the existence of a prima facie case.
• Non-Applicability of Cited Judgments: The court meticulously examined the judgments cited by the defense counsel. It ruled that principles from previous cases granting bail in Section 376 cases (Saikat Maity Vs. State of Karnataka) were not applicable here because the instant case involved a specific allegation of forcible sexual intercourse against the victim’s will, unlike consensual relationships cited in other precedents. Furthermore, judgments related to anticipatory bail or involving different IPC sections were deemed irrelevant at this stage of a regular bail application under Section 439 involving both rape and SC/ST Act charges.

The court concluded: “Under these circumstances, looking into the nature of the offence, at this stage it may not be appropriate to release him on bail. If the petitioner is released, his presence cannot be secured for the trial as he may abscond, tamper the prosecution witnesses and also may pose life threats to the complainant and witnesses, may commit similar offences.”

Based on these findings, the bail petition filed by Devaraja was dismissed. The order ensures that the accused remains in judicial custody while the trial in Spl. C. No. 1107/2022 proceeds.