In an order passed on April 16, 2024, the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No. 71), presided over by Sri Rajesh Karnam K., B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M., rejected the regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3093/2024. The court denied pre-trial release to Rajashekar (Accused) in connection with an FIR registered at the HAL Police Station, Bengaluru.
The petitioner faces prosecution for alleged offences punishable under:
- Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Rape / Sexual assault
- Section 406 of the IPC: Criminal breach of trust
- Section 417 of the IPC: Cheating
- Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Offences of atrocities committed against a member of a Scheduled Caste.
Case Overview & Prosecution Allegations
The criminal proceedings originated from a formal complaint lodged by Kumari Kolla Sowjanya, who was employed as a team leader at the LG Service Centre in Kundalahalli, Bengaluru.
According to the prosecution records and charge-sheet allegations:
- Relationship and False Promise of Marriage: The petitioner, Rajashekar, worked in the same office as the complainant. He obtained her contact details, initiated communication, and proposed marriage to her via video call, to which she agreed.
- Repeated Sexual Exploitation: Under the persistent false promise of marriage, the petitioner allegedly induced the victim to accompany him to various hotels—including the Royal Inn Rooms Hotel on ITPL Main Road and the Petun IA Boutique Hotel, Bengaluru, on November 6, November 11, and November 17, 2023—where he engaged in forced sexual intercourse with her.
- Caste-Based Exploitation: The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was fully aware that the complainant belonged to the ‘Mala’ community (a Scheduled Caste from Andhra Pradesh). Knowing her background, he fraudulently lured her into a relationship while suppressing the fact that he was already a married man (married to C.W.5).
- Workplace Inquiries: In addition to the criminal prosecution, workplace sexual harassment proceedings were initiated by the Branch Manager under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, leading to an inquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC).
Following police investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Court, and the petitioner was taken into judicial custody on December 20, 2023.
Details of the Petitioner
- Name: Rajashekar
- Father’s Name: Ramesh
- Age: Approximately 32 years
- Residential Address: No. 3/608, Ganajuru Village, Tubakanapalli Post, Sulagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu – 635109
- Custodial Status: In Judicial Custody since December 20, 2023
- Legal Representation: Sri D.B.M., Advocate
Submissions & Arguments Advanced
On Behalf of the Petitioner
- Consensual/Fabricated Incident: The defense argued that the allegations were baseless and engineered at the behest of C.W.2 (Pradeep Kumar K.).
- Hotel Room Booking Details: The defense highlighted that hotel records indicated Room No. 108 at Royal Inn Rooms Hotel was booked in the victim’s name on November 6, 2023, claiming that the victim took the accused there voluntarily rather than under duress.
- No Forceful Assault: The defense submitted that the materials collected failed to establish forcible sexual assault or fraudulent intent, and that the petitioner, having aged parents and deep roots in society, was willing to submit to stringent bail conditions.
On Behalf of the State & Respondent No. 2 (Special Public Prosecutor)
- Grave and Non-Bailable Offences: The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) argued that the petitioner committed aggravated sexual assault punishable with life imprisonment under Section 376 IPC read with the SC/ST (POA) Act.
- Suppression of Marital Status: The prosecution emphasized that the petitioner fraudulently deceived a Scheduled Caste woman by promising marriage despite already being married.
- High Risk of Tampering: The SPP pointed out that because the case involves workplace colleagues and ongoing ICC proceedings, enlarging the accused on bail posed a severe risk of witness intimidation, evidence tampering, and flight from justice.
Judicial Findings & Legal Analysis
Evaluating the charge-sheet materials, hotel occupancy records, and ICC inquiry findings, Special Judge Sri Rajesh Karnam K. concluded that the petitioner failed to make out grounds for regular bail:
- Prima Facie Material: The court observed that the mere fact that the hotel room was booked in the victim’s name does not exonerate the accused or negate allegations of sexual exploitation under a false promise of marriage.
- Severity of Statutory Penalty: The offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act carry severe statutory penalties extending up to life imprisonment.
- Protection of Witnesses: Given the workplace relationship and the existence of parallel inquiry proceedings under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) framework, the court held that releasing the accused at this stage created an unacceptable risk of tampering with prosecution witnesses.
Final Court Order
Answering Point No. 1 in the negative, the Special Court passed the following order:
- The petition filed by the petitioner, Rajashekar, under Section 438/439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby REJECTED.