A Special Court in Bengaluru has rejected the anticipatory bail application of a 22-year-old man accused of sexually exploiting a woman from a marginalized community under the pretext of marriage and subsequently sabotaging her engagement with another person. The order was delivered on April 24, 2024, by Sri Rajesh Karnam K, the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru. The court observed that a prima facie case exists against the accused, thereby attracting the statutory bars against pre-arrest bail under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.

The petitioner, Sudeep A, a resident of Channasandra, Horamavu, approached the court seeking protection from arrest in Crime Number 231/2024 registered by the K.R. Puram Police Station. The charges against him include violations of Section 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), Section 506 (Criminal intimidation), and Section 417 (Punishment for cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Additionally, he faces serious charges under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.

The Allegations of Sexual Exploitation and Betrayal

According to the complaint lodged by the victim, the ordeal began on July 23, 2023, when Sudeep allegedly took her to a hotel in Bengaluru under the guise of discussing marriage arrangements. The victim alleged that Sudeep had sexual intercourse with her in a booked room but later refused to marry her, specifically citing her caste—the Bhovi community—as the reason for his refusal.

The victim further detailed a pattern of repeated exploitation. She alleged that on October 24, 2023, Sudeep again took her to a hotel in K.R. Puram and sexually used her. The most damaging allegation involved Sudeep’s interference in the victim’s marriage prospects with another individual named Munanji. The complainant alleged that on October 28, 2023, Sudeep created a fake social media account in her name to send derogatory messages to her fiancé. On the day of her scheduled marriage to Munanji, Sudeep allegedly showed private photographs of the victim to the groom, effectively stopping the wedding and destroying her social reputation.

Despite these actions, the victim claimed that Sudeep continued to exploit her on multiple dates between December 2023 and January 2024, always maintaining his refusal to formalize the relationship due to her caste.

Defense Arguments and the Counter Narrative

Counsel representing Sudeep A argued that the entire complaint was a concocted story designed to force him into a marriage. The defense contended that Sudeep was merely providing moral support to the victim after her marriage with Munanji was cancelled and that he had no role in the cancellation itself.

The petitioner’s counsel presented WhatsApp conversations and photographs, claiming they proved Sudeep’s innocence. They argued that the victim and her parents were threatening the petitioner to marry her against his will. The defense further relied on various judicial precedents from the High Court of Karnataka and the Delhi High Court, suggesting that the court should exercise its discretion to grant conditional bail.

Prosecution’s Objection and the SC ST Act Bar

The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) vehemently opposed the bail petition, highlighting the gravity of the psychological and physical trauma inflicted on the victim. The prosecution noted that the victim, a student whose father is an auto driver, had seen her life prospects shattered due to the petitioner’s conduct.

The SPP argued that under Section 18 and Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, there is a specific bar on granting anticipatory bail if a prima facie case is established. They argued that the petitioner’s access to the private communications of the victim and her former fiancé actually demonstrated his undue influence and interference in her life.

The Court’s Ruling

After hearing both sides, Judge Rajesh Karnam K noted that the materials on record sufficiently established a prima facie case against the petitioner. The court found it particularly telling that the petitioner had access to the WhatsApp messages of a third party (Munanji), which indicated a deeper involvement than what the defense claimed was simple “moral support.”

The court emphasized that in cases involving the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, the judicial discretion to grant pre-arrest bail is severely limited once the allegations are found to be credible at a preliminary stage. The court concluded that the facts of the cases cited by the petitioner were distinct from the current matter and therefore did not apply.

In its final order, the court rejected the petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, clearing the way for the K.R. Puram police to proceed with the custodial interrogation of Sudeep A.

Would you like me to explain the specific sections of the SC ST Act that were cited in this order?