Absence of Mobile Phone Recovery Casts Doubt on Prima Facie Case Under BNS Section 75: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Alleged Sexual Harassment Case

"Except the offence under Section 75 of BNS, other allegations are substantially bailable and the gravity does not show that there is need for custodial detention," ruled the Karnataka High Court while granting anticipatory bail to a university official accused of sexual harassment, highlighting the lack of evidentiary urgency and parity with co-accused already granted bail.

In a notable ruling addressing the interplay between allegations of sexual harassment, custodial necessity, and the evolving jurisprudence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Karnataka High Court, granted anticipatory bail to a university official accused of coercive conduct and sexual demands against a female guest lecturer.

Justice C. M. Joshi held that the prosecution’s case under Section 75 of the BNS—which criminalizes abuse of authority for sexual exploitation—was not clearly made out at this stage, especially given the unexplained absence of the mobile phone that allegedly contained the offending material.

"The FIR also does not mention as to whether such mobile phone was produced before the SHO at the time of filing of the complaint... Custodial interrogation not necessary," observed the Court, casting doubt on the gravity and immediacy of the allegations.

"Where Co-Accused Are on Bail, Denial Without Reason Violates Principle of Parity": High Court Criticizes Sessions Court for Arbitrary Refusal

The High Court sharply criticized the Sessions Court for denying anticipatory bail to the petitioner without offering a reasoned distinction, particularly when co-accused Nos. 2 and 3, similarly situated and present during the incident, had already been granted bail.

“When accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been granted anticipatory bail, there is no reason for rejection of the anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein,” held the Court, reaffirming the foundational criminal law principle that similarly placed accused should be treated equally in bail jurisprudence.

Custody Not Warranted When Material Evidence Is Missing and Complaint Stems From Prior Employment Disputes

In this case, the complainant, a guest lecturer at Bengaluru University, alleged that the petitioner, a senior university official, recorded her without consent, abused her using obscene language, and made sexually suggestive threats linked to her continued employment. An FIR was registered under Sections 75, 79, 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, by the Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru.

However, the High Court took note that the complainant did not produce the mobile phone, allegedly containing the audio or video evidence, nor did the FIR clarify whether the device was surrendered to police. The complaint was also found to be part of a continuing employment-related conflict, including a prior complaint allegedly settled in 2024.

The High Court concluded that custodial interrogation was unnecessary at this stage, particularly when other accused had already been granted bail and when the core evidence—the mobile phone—was absent from the record.

Allegations Arising From Employment Termination Dispute

The FIR alleged that while the complainant was working as a guest lecturer, the accused persons, including the petitioner (Accused No.1), were attempting to remove her from service. She claimed that the petitioner had filmed her, used sexually offensive language, and threatened her with job loss unless she acceded to his sexual demands. The complainant allegedly snatched the petitioner’s mobile phone, where she found recordings of the abusive conduct.

However, the FIR was silent on what became of the phone. The complainant allegedly retained it but did not produce it before the police or indicate whether it was returned. This factual vacuum undermined the basis for custodial interrogation, as emphasized by the High Court.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the complainant had a pattern of filing complaints after her removal from the guest lecturership. He also pointed to parity with co-accused and humanitarian concerns, including his wife’s advanced pregnancy and his child’s ill health.

In contrast, the prosecution argued that the allegations were serious and that anticipatory bail should be denied absent exceptional circumstances.

Section 75 BNS Not Prima Facie Attracted, Parity Ignored

The core legal question was whether a prima facie case under Section 75 of BNS—which criminalizes abuse of position by a public servant or authority for sexual exploitation—was made out, and whether custodial interrogation was required to further the investigation.

Justice Joshi held:

"Except the offence under Section 75 of BNS, other allegations are substantially bailable and the gravity do not show that there is need for custodial detention."

The Court emphasized that no additional relationship of trust, authority, or coercion—beyond the employment context—was evident from the complaint, nor was there any contemporaneous material corroborating the claim that the petitioner used his official position to sexually exploit the complainant.

In dealing with the issue of parity, the Court underscored that Accused Nos. 2 and 3, present during the alleged incident, had been granted bail, and no distinguishing factor justified denying similar relief to the petitioner.

"The episode of snatching of mobile phone and the recording pertains to the accused No.1 alone but in all other aspects, the accused Nos.2 and 3 also stand in the same position as that of the petitioner," the Court found, concluding that the Sessions Court erred by not extending bail on this basis.

FIR Appears to Be an Outcome of Prior Enmity—No Grounds for Denial of Bail

The High Court ultimately allowed the petition, concluding that the FIR appeared to emerge from an ongoing and pre-existing dispute related to the complainant's removal from service. The Court ruled:

"There is ground to believe that the FIR is an outcome of earlier enmity between the parties... The dispute between the parties was in respect of removing the complainant from guest lecturership in the University."

Accordingly, the Court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest, upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties, and imposed the following judicial safeguards:

The petitioner must appear before the investigating officer within two weeks, must not threaten or influence any witness, must disclose his residential and contact information, and must refrain from committing similar offences. The IO retains liberty to move the trial court should custodial presence become necessary.

A Cautionary Reminder That Allegations Must Be Tested Against Evidentiary Standards Even at Bail Stage

This decision reiterates a key tenet of criminal procedure—that bail should not be denied mechanically based on allegations, especially when the investigative material lacks urgency or corroboration. The High Court’s measured reasoning provides a framework for applying Section 75 of the BNS with appropriate judicial caution, ensuring that it is not invoked casually without foundational evidence.

The ruling also serves as a reminder to lower courts that parity in bail decisions is not merely discretionary but a matter of constitutional fairness, especially in cases involving multiple accused facing identical allegations.

Date of Decision: October 3, 2025