Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22223
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S RACHAIAH, J
SRI SYED PARVEEZ MUSHRAFF – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1493 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. NAUSHAD PASHA
For the Respondents: SMT.PUSHPALATHA
The court emphasized the severe nature of the offences against women, supporting the denial of bail based on public policy and victim safety considerations.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) - Bail application - The appellant seeks regular bail for alleged offences including rape and assistance in the commission of such an act. The prosecution states that the victim was assaulted and raped by accused No. 1, while the appellant facilitated the crime. The court notes the severity of the offences and the impact on the victim. (Paras 1, 10, 11, 12)
(B) Granting Bail - The court considers the nature of accusations, evidence, and potential threats to the complainant while weighing the personal liberty against the severity of the allegations. The heinous nature of the crime, particularly against an adolescent girl, is emphasized in the court's decision to reject the bail. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The victim, aged 19, was assaulted after alighting at a railway station, with charges against the appellant stating he aided in restraining the victim's cousin while the primary assailant raped her.
Findings of Court:
The appellant's actions were deemed heinous, warranting denial of bail. The implications of the act on the victim's life were profoundly considered.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was the characterization of the crime's severity and its impact on victim's right to safety versus the appellant's right to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court articulated that the nature of the crime against the victim, in conjunction with the philosophy on women’s honor and safety, justifies the rejection of bail.
Result: The appeal for bail was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court weighs public safety and gravity of crime against personal liberty. (Para 1 , 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. victim's account of the assault offers grounds for prosecution. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. defense contends that the appellant's role was not central to the assault. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's observations on the nature of the offence. (Para 8) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant herein, who is arrayed as accused No.2, has filed this appeal seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime No.205/2025 vide Spl.C.C.No.1119/2025 on the file of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-71) in Crl.Misc.No.4289/2025 for the offences punishable under Section 115 (2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 64 r/w Sections 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Factual matrix of the case:
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on
02.04.2025, around 03.30 a.m., the victim, aged about 19 years, lodged a complaint stating that she was residing along with her parents. She had come to Kattappan village, Kerala, where her sister and brother-in-law were residing and working in the cardamom garden.
3. It is further stated that, as she was not interested to work, she decided to go back to her native. On 01.04.2025, she went to Ernakulam railway station. Thereafter, she was instructed to board the Bengaluru- bound rail and get down at K.R.Puram railway station. Accordingly, she reached the said railway station around 01.30 A.M. on 02.04.2025. The complainant and her cousin brother were proceeding towards Mahadevapura to have food, in the meantime, they were wrongfully restrained and they have been assaulted. One of the accused had taken the victim to a nearby place and had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, she cried for help, and the public started gathering. On seeing the public, the accused persons were trying to escape; however, one of the accused was caught by the public. In the meantime, the Police arrived. The Police took him into custody.
4. The respondent-Police enquired him and he revealed his name as Asif. A case came to be registered against two persons. After conducting the investigation, the respondent-Police submitted the charge-sheet.
5. Heard Sri. Naushad Pasha, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Pushpalatha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the appellant, who is arraigned as accused No.2, has not committed rape on the victim. In fact, as per the averments of the statement, the accused No.2 was holding C.W.2, who is said to be the cousin brother of the victim and the accused No.1 stated to have committed sexual intercourse on the victim. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by considering the overt-act. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1, vehemently controverted the said fact and further, she submitted that the accused No.2 had held C.W.2, who is the cousin brother of the victim. The appellant was continuously threatening C.W.2 and he was also facilitating the accused No.1 to commit rape on the victim.
8. It is further submitted that, the manner in which these two appellants behaved with the victim really creates doubt in the mind of the women as to whether they really got independence or not. In order to secure the confidence in the mind of young women and also the public at large, it is necessary to reject the bail. Having said thus, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 prays to reject the bail application.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the
