The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a practicing lawyer accused of repeated rape , unnatural sexual assault , and caste-based humiliation . Justice Rajeshwari N. Hegde, presiding over the Dharwad Bench , rejected the application, citing the gravity of the allegations and the necessity of a thorough investigation into digital and financial evidence that forms the crux of the prosecution’s case against the appellant.

The case involves serious charges under the Indian Penal Code , including Section 376(2)(n), which pertains to repeated rape by a person in a position of authority, as well as Section 377, Section 504, and Section 506. Furthermore, the accused faces charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , specifically sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), and 3(2)(v). The High Court’s refusal to grant relief underscores the judicial stance on pre-arrest protection in instances where specific, consistent allegations of heinous crimes are corroborated by potential digital evidence.

According to the complainant, a married woman who runs a catering business, the accused exploited her vulnerable situation after meeting her in January 2024 . The victim alleges that the appellant repeatedly forced her into sexual acts and unnatural intercourse across various lodges in Belagavi. Furthermore, the complaint claims that the accused coerced her into consuming alcohol, recorded nude photos and videos to blackmail her, and subjected her to verbal abuse centered on her caste identity. The victim also alleged that the accused extracted money from her under duress, leading her to finally register a complaint at the Shahapur Police Station in May 2026 .

Investigatory Hurdles and Evidence

During the proceedings, the state and the complainant’s counsel highlighted the existence of substantial forensic and digital evidence, including call records, WhatsApp communications, PhonePe transactions, and lodge registration documents. The prosecution argued that these items constitute prima facie evidence that must be analyzed by the investigating officer. Justice Hegde noted in the judgment, "As the allegation against the accused/appellant is serious in nature, for these reasons this Court is of the opinion that, the accused/appellant is not entitled to grant anticipatory bail ."

The defense counsel had attempted to frame the case as a retaliatory action, arguing that the complainant filed the FIR as a counter-move to a loan recovery dispute. The appellant’s legal team claimed that the victim owed him money and sought to malign him with a false case to avoid repayment. They contended that the delay of over two years between the initial alleged incident and the filing of the FIR undermined the credibility of the accusations. Additionally, the defense argued that the appellant, being a law-abiding practitioner, was targeted maliciously.

However, the court found the arguments regarding the delay in filing the complaint to be adequately addressed by the victim’s submissions, which described a prolonged cycle of blackmail and threats against her family’s safety. The victim’s counsel emphasized that the appellant utilized his professional status as an advocate to intimidate the complainant and suppress the disclosure of the abuse.

Legal Constraints on Bail

The prosecution and the complainant’s counsel further raised the issue of maintainability of the appeal under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. They invoked Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, which impose a statutory bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in cases where a prima facie case of an offence under the Act is disclosed. The court concurred that the gravity of the offenses—coupled with the nature of the evidence—warranted a full investigation without the interference that could be caused by the granting of bail at this juncture.

"There are private videos, Phone pay transactions, financial records, lodge registers, digital photographs, WhatsApp messages, all these have to be investigated by the Investigating Officer," the court observed while justifying the denial of relief. The court’s decision to prioritize the investigation reflects the current judicial trend of ensuring that evidence sensitive to the complainant’s safety and the integrity of the probe is handled without the risk of tampering.

The proceedings at the High Court brought to light the intense nature of the dispute, with both sides presenting conflicting narratives regarding their past professional and personal associations. While the appellant maintained that their relationship was centered on the catering business and financial transactions, the victim portrayed a relationship characterized by persistent coercion and victimization. The court’s order serves as a definitive step in the ongoing investigation, ensuring that the appellant remains subject to standard criminal procedure as the police continue their inquiry.

With the appeal dismissed, the investigation into the Shahapur Police Station case now proceeds without the potential impediment of anticipatory bail . The appellant, currently a legal practitioner based in Gokak, faces the full weight of the charges as the state works to secure the electronic and financial records identified during the hearing. The court’s ruling effectively mandates that the investigation must continue at this crucial stage to ascertain the veracity of the evidence, ensuring that the complainant’s allegations of systemic harassment and abuse are probed thoroughly. The appellant is now expected to face the due course of police procedure, including potential custodial interrogation , as the case against him advances to the next stage of the criminal justice process.