Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Advocate Accused In Rape Case After Noticing His Involvement In Filing Elections Petitions Against Several Politicians

The Court was hearing a Criminal Petition seeking bail in a Criminal Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(C), 354(D), 376(1), 448, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 66(E) of Information Technology Act.

The bench of Justice M G Uma noted the submission made by the Senior Advocate regarding Petitioner G Devaraje Gowda being an advocate who is involved in filing election petitions against several political persons which resulted in the disqualification of the respondents and it is thereafter, the respondent filed the present complaint and observed, “All these facts and circumstances have to be taken into consideration while considering the bail application filed by the petitioner to form an opinion as to whether there are strong prima facie materials against the petitioner for having committed the offences.”

Senior Advocate Arun Shyam appeared for the Appellant and SPP B.A. Belliyappa appeared for the Respondent.

The Court noted that the respondent who is the victim is a married lady aged 36 years. The Court further noted that the petitioner has filed the complaint registered against the respondent and her husband Dharmendra and another. The said Dharmendra had filed a counter-complaint against the petitioner alleging the commission of offences under the provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and Sections 506 and 504 of IPC.

The Court emphasised that there was no whisper about the commission of offences which were later sought to be alleged against the petitioner including the offence of rape.

The Court further noted that the Police filed a B Report in the earlier case against the Petitioner which was accepted by the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

Accordingly, the Court noted that there are no other criminal cases registered against the present petitioner and hence, he is not having any criminal antecedents except the present case.

While noting that there is no contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation, the Court enlarged the petitioner on bail.

Finally, the court allowed the Criminal Petition.