Being a government employee not ground for grant of bail: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently observed that being a government cannot be a reason to grant bail to a person accused of a heinous offence like rape [Srinivas Murthy H.N v. State of Karnataka]..Single-judge Justice HP Sandesh was hearing the bail plea of a man employed as Assistant Executive Engineer at Karnataka Electricity Corporation Limited (KPTCL), who was arrested on charges of raping and threatening a young woman.The Court rejected his bail plea on the ground that the statement of the victim revealed that she was subjected to sexual acts against her wish by the accused, who also threatened her with her life. The medical evidence also indicated that she was subjected to sexual acts, the Court noted. ."When such being the material available on record, the fact that petitioner is a Government employee is not a ground to enlarge him on bail, where serious offence of rape has been alleged against the petitioner. Prima facie, the medical evidence as well as the 164 statement disclose the fact that the victim was subjected to sexual act," the Court said. .The accused was charged with offences punishable under Sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was alleged that in September 2021, he took the victim to a home stay to have food and sexually assaulted her there, even though she was engaged to someone else. After committing the offence, he promised to marry her and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to her family. .The accused-petitioner's lawyer, Advocate Kemparaju, argued that the accused worked as an Assistant Executive Engineer in KTPCL, and that false case had been lodged against him. Additionally, the complaint was filed one and a half months after the date of the alleged incident. The victim is 23 years 10 months old and was not forced, while the accused is 25 years old and has been in judicial custody since November 2021, which is negatively affecting his career, it was contended. .The counsel for the State, Advocate Krishna Kumar argued that the bail application should be rejected, as the victim had said in her 164 statement before the Magistrate that she was subjected to sexual activity against her will, and that she was threatened with her life. The medical report also showed evidence of sexual activity, and two employees of the home-stay also confirmed that they had seen the accused bringing the woman into his room. The Court noted that medical evidence revealed that there was tear in the hymen and doctor who examined the victim had also opined that she was subjected to sexual act. The Court, therefore, rejected the bail plea..[Read Order]