When Investigation is Complete and Charge-Sheet is Filed, Bail Can Be Granted with Safeguards: Karnataka High Court

In a significant ruling Karnataka High Court granted bail to a man accused of rape, cheating, and offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, imposing stringent conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or intimidating the victim. The Court held that "since the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, the accused can be released on bail, subject to strict conditions to protect the integrity of the trial."

The case involved allegations of sexual assault under false promise of marriage, followed by the accused refusing to marry the victim after learning about her caste background. The prosecution strongly opposed the bail plea, citing the gravity of the offense and the vulnerability of the victim. However, the Court ruled that continued incarceration was not necessary when trial proceedings were set to begin and adequate safeguards could be imposed.

"Accused Induced Victim into a Relationship, Then Refused to Marry After Learning Her Caste" – Prosecution Alleges Caste-Based Discrimination
The complaint filed by the victim, a 23-year-old woman from a Scheduled Caste community, alleged that she had been in a relationship with the accused while working in the same office in Bengaluru. She claimed that he proposed marriage and engaged in sexual relations with her on multiple occasions, promising to marry her. However, he allegedly started avoiding her and later outrightly refused to marry upon discovering that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste.

The victim further alleged that the accused deleted WhatsApp chats between them, blocked her number, and ignored all attempts at reconciliation. Devastated by the betrayal, she attempted suicide at Yeshwanthpur Railway Station, but was rescued by the police. Following an investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Sections 376 (rape), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 417 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

"Relationship was Consensual, No Threat of Evidence Tampering" – Defense Argues for Bail
The accused, Rajashekara, a 32-year-old man from Tamil Nadu, denied the allegations, arguing that the relationship was entirely consensual and that the victim was attempting to use the Atrocities Act to falsely implicate him. His counsel contended that:

•    The victim had willingly accompanied him to hotels on multiple occasions, which indicated consent.
•    The delay in filing the complaint weakened the prosecution’s case.
•    The accused had been in custody for 14 months, and since the charge-sheet had already been filed, there was no risk of evidence tampering.
The defense urged the Court to consider that "the alleged incidents occurred over a period of time, and the prosecution has not provided any independent corroboration to prove that the accused forced or coerced the victim."

"Doctor’s Opinion Does Not Rule Out Sexual Assault" – Court Finds Prima Facie Material But Grants Bail
The Court carefully examined the medical report, which stated that "it cannot be ruled out that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse." Taking this into account, the Court observed that "while there is material to support the allegations, it is also true that the investigation has concluded and the case is now at the trial stage."

The Court acknowledged the sensitivity of the allegations, particularly the caste-based discrimination angle, but ruled that "since the charge-sheet is filed and all evidence is now in the custody of the Court, there is no justification for keeping the accused in custody for an indefinite period."

"Bail Granted with Strict Conditions to Safeguard the Trial Process" – High Court Issues Caution
While granting bail, the Court imposed stringent conditions to ensure that the accused does not interfere with the trial or intimidate the victim. It ruled that:

•    The accused must execute a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two local sureties.
•    He must not contact the victim or her family in any manner, directly or indirectly.
•    He is required to appear before the trial court on all hearing dates unless specifically exempted.
•    He cannot leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission.
The Court warned that "any violation of these conditions will result in immediate cancellation of bail, and the accused will be remanded back to custody."

The Karnataka High Court concluded that "the trial court must now proceed with the case on its merits, ensuring that justice is served while also safeguarding the rights of the accused under due process of law." It ruled that "granting bail does not imply innocence but is necessary to balance individual liberty with the need for a fair trial."

This ruling highlights the delicate balance courts must maintain in cases involving sexual assault and caste-based discrimination. The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that "bail is not a matter of punishment but a procedural safeguard to ensure that an accused does not suffer prolonged detention when the trial is pending."

By imposing strict conditions to protect the victim and the integrity of the trial, the Court has ensured that "justice is not compromised while also upholding the accused’s fundamental rights."

Date of Decision: 04 March 2025