A Special Court in Bengaluru has rejected the bail application of 28-year-old Sachin Thelakar, who stands accused of raping a woman under the pretext of marriage and insulting her based on her caste. The order, delivered on June 30, 2022, by Sri Prakash V., the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, emphasizes the gravity of sexual offenses and the protection afforded to victims under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The petitioner, Sachin Thelakar, a resident of Koppa Town in Chikkamagalore and an employee at Bosch Rexroth Company, sought release under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He has been charge-sheeted in Special Case No. 1038/2022 for offenses punishable under Section 376 (Punishment for Rape), Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), Section 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and Section 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Prosecution Case: Love Affair Turned Coercion

The legal proceedings began following a complaint lodged with the Rajagopala Nagar Police Station. According to the prosecution, the complainant and Sachin Thelakar met through the social media platform Facebook in 2020. A romantic relationship ensued after the accused allegedly promised to marry the victim.

The prosecution alleged that under this promise of marriage, the accused engaged in forceful sexual intercourse with the victim on several occasions against her will at his residence in Sanjeevini Nagar. When the victim eventually insisted on formalizing their relationship through marriage, the accused reportedly refused. The complainant further alleged that Sachin abused her in filthy language, specifically referencing her caste to humiliate her, and threatened her life.

Arguments for Bail: Consent and Delay

The defense counsel argued that the relationship was entirely consensual. They contended that since the complainant is an educated adult, she was well aware of the consequences of her actions. The defense cited Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, arguing that continuous sexual intercourse between consenting adults cannot be classified as rape.

Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel pointed to a statement made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the victim admitted to staying with the accused multiple times. The defense also raised concerns regarding a two-year delay in filing the complaint, suggesting it was an afterthought intended to harass a respectable professional. To support their claims, the defense cited various judgments from the High Courts of Karnataka, Kerala, and Delhi, as well as the Supreme Court, regarding consensual relationships and anticipatory bail.

Judicial Reasoning: Prima Facie Evidence and Victim Protection

The Special Court, however, remained unmoved by the defense’s arguments regarding consent. Judge Prakash V. noted that at the stage of a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court’s limited jurisdiction is to determine if a prima facie case exists and if there is a risk of the accused tampering with evidence or witnesses.

The court observed that the charge sheet contained specific overt acts against Sachin Thelakar, detailing forcible sexual intercourse against the victim’s will based on a false promise of marriage. The judge clarified that whether the act was consensual is a matter for the trial and cannot be decided during a bail hearing.

Regarding the legal precedents cited by the defense, the court found them inapplicable. For instance, while some courts have granted bail in cases of “love affairs,” this court distinguished the present case by highlighting the specific allegations of force and the misuse of the victim’s caste identity. The judge emphasized that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, which adds a layer of seriousness to the offenses under the Atrocities Act.

Conclusion and Dismissal

The court expressed strong apprehensions that if released, the petitioner might abscond to avoid trial, pose a threat to the complainant’s life, or influence the witnesses. Given the nature and gravity of the offenses, the judge concluded that the apprehension of the prosecution was well-founded.

The court held that the interest of a fair trial and the safety of the victim outweighed the petitioner’s plea for liberty at this stage. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed. Sachin Thelakar remains in custody as the case proceeds to trial in the Special Court.