Sexual Assault & Forced Labour of Minor Girl 'Unpardonable'; Bail Denied to Send Strong Societal Signal: Karnataka HC - 2025-09-10

'Unpardonable Act': Karnataka High Court Denies Bail in Minor's Sexual Assault and Forced Labour Case

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court, in a stern ruling, has rejected the bail plea of a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl, forcing her into labour, and receiving money for it. Justice S Rachaiah, presiding over the single-judge bench, described the alleged act of a 37-year-old married man against a minor from the Scheduled Caste community as "unpardonable," emphasizing the need to send a "strong signal to the society at large."

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Sri Chandrappa (appellant) against the state of Karnataka, challenging the denial of regular bail in a case involving multiple serious offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a missing person complaint filed by the victim's mother on July 27, 2022. The prosecution's case is that the appellant, Sri Chandrappa, who was known to the minor victim, forcibly took her in his vehicle to a mango grove where he allegedly committed sexual assault.

Following the assault, he is accused of taking her to the 'Venkateshwara Dhaba' and leaving her there to work as a labourer. The charge sheet alleges that he received an advance payment from the dhaba owner (accused No. 2) for supplying the girl for manual work. The appellant allegedly returned to the dhaba a week later and committed sexual assault again.

The victim was rescued after she managed to call her cousin from a customer's phone. After her rescue, her statement was recorded, and the police filed a charge sheet for offences including kidnapping (S.363), rape (S.376), and wrongful confinement (S.366) under the IPC, alongside charges under the POCSO and SC/ST Acts.

Arguments Before the Court

Appellant's Submissions: Sri Nanjunda Gowda M.R., counsel for the appellant, argued for his client's innocence, contending that he was falsely implicated. The defence highlighted that the victim had given different versions of the incident at various stages. It was also argued that the victim's conduct was unnatural, as she worked at the dhaba for nearly eight days without informing anyone of her plight. The defence further submitted that the victim had a history of eloping from her home, a fact the Trial Court failed to consider.

Respondent's Submissions: The State, represented by Smt. Waheeda M.M., vehemently opposed the bail plea. The prosecution stressed the gravity of the offences, pointing out that the victim was a minor belonging to the Scheduled Caste community who was not only sexually assaulted but also exploited for labour.

Sri Siddharth P. Desai, appearing for the victim (respondent No.2), echoed these arguments. He contended that the appellant, a 37-year-old married man, committed a heinous offence by assaulting a minor and then effectively selling her into labour, making him undeserving of bail.

Court's Observations and Ruling

After reviewing the charge sheet and hearing both parties, Justice S Rachaiah found the allegations deeply disturbing. The Court noted the dual nature of the crime—sexual assault compounded by forced labour.

In a pivotal observation, the judgment stated:

"The act of committing sexual assault on the minor girl being a married man is unpardonable and it has to be viewed strictly not only in order to restore the confidence in the minds of children and women, but also to send a strong signal to the society at large."

The Court further highlighted the victim's vulnerability due to her caste identity, remarking on the need for vigilance.

"It is noticed here that, the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and she is so susceptible to persons like appellant, for the purpose of exploitation. Hence, it is high time to send a strong signal to the society at large to be more vigilant on women and children belonging to weaker sections of the society."

Concluding that the appellant had committed an unpardonable act by inducing and exploiting a minor girl, the High Court found no grounds to grant bail.

Final Order: The criminal appeal was rejected.