In Srinivas Murthy H.N v. State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court recently stated that being a government official cannot be used as a grounds to give bail to someone accused of a terrible crime like rape. The bail application of a guy employed as an Assistant Executive Engineer at Karnataka Electricity Corporation Limited (KPTCL) who was detained on charges of raping and threatening a young woman was heard by single-judge Justice HP Sandesh.
The court denied his bail application, citing the victim’s statement, which stated that the accused subjected her to sexual actions against her will and threatened her life.
The medical data also suggested that she had been subjected to sexual actions, according to the Court.
When such evidence is available, the fact that the petitioner is a government employee is not a reason to release him on bond, especially when a serious rape charge has been levelled against him.
Presumably, the medical data and the 164 statement reveal that the victim was subjected to a sexual act, the Court stated.The accused was charged with rape, cheating, and criminal intimidation under Indian Penal Code Sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) (IPC).
He allegedly took the woman to a home stay in September 2021 for dinner and sexually attacked her there, despite the fact that she was engaged to someone else.
He offered to marry her after committing the crime and threatened to murder her if she told her family about it.
Advocate Kemparaju, the accused-lawyer, petitioner’s stated that the accused worked for KTPCL as an Assistant Executive Engineer and that a fake case had been filed against him.
Furthermore, the complaint was made one and a half months after the claimed assault occurred.
The victim is 23 years and 10 months old and was not coerced, but the accused is 25 years old and has been in judicial detention since November 2021, which has harmed his job, according to the allegations.
Advocate Krishna Kumar, for the State, submitted that the bail application should be denied because the victim stated in her 164 statement before the Magistrate that she had been subjected to sexual intercourse against her choice and that she had been threatened with her life.
The medical examination revealed signs of sexual conduct, and two home stay staff confirmed that they had observed the accused bringing the child.
Medical evidence proved a tear in the hymen, and a doctor who examined the victim also stated that she had been subjected to a sexual act, according to the Court. As a result, the court dismissed the bail request.