The Karnataka High Court, while refusing bail to a man accused of facilitating rape of a woman belonging to a scheduled caste/ scheduled tribe, along with the main accused, invoked quotes from the Manusmriti and Mahatama Gandhi on women's honour and freedom.

The Court was considering an Appeal seeking regular bail in case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 64 r/w Sections 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The bench of Justice Siddaiah Rachaiah held, "The act committed by the accused along with another accused will remain in her life as a scar. It would be very difficult for her to come out of the agony that she had undergone. Having considered the same, it is relevant at this point of time to quote the sloka of Manusmriti which says “Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra Devata, yatraitaastu na pujyante sarvaastatrafalaah kriyaah” is a famous sloka taken from Manusmriti, which means, where women are honored, divinity blossoms there, and where women are dishonored, all actions, no matter how noble, remain unfruitful.......Now, it is also relevant to quote the sayings of Mahatma Gandhiji on “freedom”, it says, “The day a woman can walk freely on the road at night, that day we can say that India has achieved independence”."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Naushad Pasha, while the Respondent was represented by Additional State Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha.

Facts of the Case

It was the complainant's case that on her journey back to her native village, she and her younger brother were wrongfully restrained and were assaulted. One of the Accused had taken the victim to a nearby place and had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, she cried for help, and the public started gathering. On seeing the public, the Accused persons were trying to escape; however, one of the Accused was caught by the public.

Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was averred that it was the other accused who committed the act

On the other hand, the Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that, the manner in which these two Appellants behaved with the victim really creates doubt in the mind of the women as to whether they really got independence or not. It was further submitted that 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.

Reasoning By Court

The Court noted that 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.

"In this case, 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 Court observed.

The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Sri Syed Parveez Mushraff vs. State of Karnataka (2025:KHC:34812)

Click here to read/ download Order








Karnataka High CourtJustice Siddaiah Rachaiah

Sheetal Joon