Facilitating Rape Is Not a Lesser Crime: Karnataka High Court Denies Bail to Co-Accused Who Restrained Victim’s Cousin in Gang Rape Case

Karnataka High Court firmly rejected the bail plea of Syed Parveez Mushraff, accused of facilitating the rape of a 19-year-old Dalit girl by restraining her cousin while another co-accused committed the sexual assault. In a judgment resonating with legal and social conscience, Justice S. Rachaiah held that the conduct of the appellant was "heinous in nature" and warranted no sympathy from the court at the stage of bail.

Dismissing Criminal Appeal the Court observed: “The appellant herein had facilitated the accused No.1 to commit the said offence by holding C.W.2. The manner in which the appellant had committed the offence against the victim is considered as heinous in nature.”

The appellant had argued that since he was not the one who committed the rape, his involvement was minimal. The Court, however, found no merit in this defence, declaring that “his active participation in restraining the victim’s cousin made him equally culpable.”

“Where Women Are Dishonoured, All Noble Actions Remain Fruitless”: Court Cites Manusmriti and Gandhiji While Rejecting Bail in Rape Facilitation Case

Calling attention to the broader implications of sexual violence against Dalit women, the High Court invoked both scriptural wisdom and constitutional morality. In words seldom seen in judicial orders, the Court quoted the Manusmriti:

“Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra Devata, yatraitaastu na pujyante sarvaastatrafalaah kriyaah”, translating to
“Where women are honoured, divinity blossoms there; and where they are dishonoured, all actions, no matter how noble, remain unfruitful.”

Justice Rachaiah did not stop there. He invoked the soul of India’s freedom struggle, quoting Mahatma Gandhi: “The day a woman can walk freely on the road at night, that day we can say that India has achieved independence.”

The Court observed that such crimes are not just legal infractions but moral wounds upon society, especially when committed against Dalit women, and committed in spaces where safety is presumed—such as a railway station.

“Rape of a Dalit Girl in Transit, Facilitated by Co-Accused, Is a Crime Against the Constitution”: High Court Calls It Heinous and Premeditated

The case stems from a horrifying incident reported in Bengaluru, where the victim, after travelling from Kerala, was accosted at 1:30 a.m. near K.R. Puram railway station while walking with her cousin. She was then forcibly restrained, and accused No.1 committed rape, while the present appellant allegedly threatened and held back the cousin to prevent intervention.

The Court rejected the appellant's claim that his overt act was minimal or indirect, stating:
“The act of restraining the victim’s cousin enabled the main accused to execute the crime. There is prima facie evidence of premeditation and shared intent.”

Referring to provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, particularly Sections 115(2) (attempt to commit offence punishable with life imprisonment), 126(2) (abetment), and 351(2), 351(3), and 352 (wrongful restraint and use of criminal force), the Court held that the role of the appellant fell squarely within the framework of a heinous, compound offence.

The additional invocation of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, further underlined that the crime was aggravated by the caste identity of the victim.

“Right to Liberty Must Yield When Conduct Strikes at the Soul of Society”: High Court Emphasises Need for Victim-Centric Bail Decisions

Justice Rachaiah addressed the constitutional tension between personal liberty and public interest, affirming that bail cannot be granted in mechanical adherence to rights, especially when the accused’s conduct is of such grave nature.

He noted: “The personal life and liberty of a person are recognized as fundamental rights. However, such a right has to be exercised sparingly with utmost care and caution.”

Emphasising the lifelong impact of the crime on the victim, the Court observed: “The accused had committed a heinous offence against an adolescent girl who dreamt about her future and also aimed towards her life and its goal. The act… will remain in her life as a scar.”

The Court highlighted the need to restore public faith in the justice system and create a climate of safety for women, especially those from vulnerable communities. "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," the Court firmly stated.

Participation in Rape, Whether Direct or Facilitatory, Warrants No Leniency – Especially When the Victim Is a Dalit Woman

In a judgment that blends legal reasoning with ethical and social clarity, the Karnataka High Court has laid down a clear and forceful precedent that facilitating rape is legally equivalent to participation, particularly when done with intent, planning, and caste-based targeting.

The Court refused to treat the appellant’s actions as peripheral, stating unequivocally that “such acts strike at the core of woman’s dignity, personal safety, and constitutional equality.”

The appeal was thus dismissed, and the accused remains in custody pending trial.

Date of Decision: 04 September 2025