'Clear That Police Helped Culprit' : Karnataka High Court Cancels Bail Granted To Rape-Accused Cop

A single bench of Justice H P Sandesh, while quashing the order dated December 19, 2020 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, said "The act of the police officials is nothing but allowing a person, that too, a police officer, who has committed a serious offence of sexual harassment to go scot-free. Except registering the case against the accused, the officers of the Police Department helped the accused to escape from the clutches of law. It is very clear that the police officials have helped a person, who is a culprit."

The court has also transferred the investigation into the case from the local police to the COD and directed it to submit the final report no later than four months from the date of the order and directed the District Superintendent of Police to initiate an inquiry against Inspector of Police Mr.Sandesh and Mr.Pavan, the Sub-Inspector of Police and other subordinates for the lapse on their part and submit the report within three months to the court.

Case background:

As per the victim,  in the month of August, 2020, she had lodged the complaint with the Chamarajpet P.S. for having lost her laptop. The Respondent No.6(Biradar), who was investigating the matter collected the phone number of the petitioner and in the pretext of investigating the case, started calling the petitioner and also messaging her in the night. He sought financial assistance of Rs.12 lakhs from the petitioner which she refused. Then he expressed that he is in love with her which she did not encourage.

Then on 08.11.2020, he called her and requested to meet and then they both met, had lunch and he requested her to marry him and then at 8.00 p.m. took her to his house to meet his parents. Respondent No.6 proposed to get her married at Dharmastala.

Both of them went to Dharmastala to get married with the arrangement being made by the petitioner. On 10.11.2020, they reached Dharmastala and he booked a room at Gangothri and at that time, respondent No.6 tried to have sexual intercourse. The petitioner resisted the same. However, he had sexual intercourse with her against her wish and committed rape on her. Later on some pretext or the other he refused to perform marriage and then revealed to the victim that he was already married.

The petitioner was shocked to hear this from respondent No.6 and felt betrayed, cheated and decided to lodge a complaint at Dharmastala P.S. At that time, he told her not to register any complaint. When she complained in the police station, one Mr. Pavan-PSI. It was alleged that she was assaulted by the police inside the police station for lodging the complaint.

Submission made by the victim seeking cancellation of bail.

The victim appeared in person and contended that the petitioner, who was a victim of circumstances, has to undergo mental trauma at the hands of the police authorities for the fault of raising her voice for justice. Her basic rights were infringed by the authorities and no actions were taken by the competent authorities.

Further, petitioner submitted that she was subjected to character assassination, torture and agony which should not happen to anybody else. Hence, she approached the Court seeking cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No.6 and also to transfer the case to COD for fair investigation as she is not expecting any fair investigation in the hands of a person, who has been indulged in assaulting her and causing life threat.

Contention made by the accused.

Firstly, it was said that cancellation of anticipatory bail, the Court could invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C only under special circumstances.  Secondly, it was alleged that the petitioner is having the habit of filing the complaint against others.

Court findings:

Ongoing through the facts of the case the court noted "The District Superintendent of Police, in spite of severe allegations being made against the local police, allowed the very local police to conduct the investigation in the matter. When the specific allegations are made against the Inspector, Sub Inspector and other staff, the District Superintendent of Police ought to have changed the Investigating Officer in order to conduct a fair investigation and the same has not been done."

Further it said "When these allegations are made and when the document of the KIMS hospital shows that she was subjected to assault and threatened and when the same has been narrated by lodging complaint to the police including IGP and DGP, none of them have taken any action. When a woman makes the complaint alleging the sexual abuse on her by the police officer and causing torture, that too, in the police station."

The court opined that "Merely because she has lodged the complaint against persons at whose instance she was subjected to harassment and also that she was subjected to sexual harassment by taking advantage of the loneliness of a woman, she cannot be branded as an habitual complainant."

It added "All the police machinery have come to the conclusion that she is having a bad character. Even assuming for a moment that she is having a bad character, whether the person, who is obligated to protect the people, could abuse his powers."

On the submission that the accused has been suspended the court observed "Merely because respondent No.6 is suspended, it cannot be said that a fair investigation has been conducted by the police."

The court also held that the police stage managed in not producing records before the court while anticipatory bail application of the accused was heard. Justice Sandesh said "Judge also while considering the anticipatory bail comes to the conclusion that there was no prima facie material against the accused. It appears that the police have stage managed in not producing the records before the learned Judge that she was subjected to sexual harassment."

It added "Learned Judge ought to have taken note of the fact that the police officer has been indulged in committing the sexual harassment, that too, on a woman who approached the police seeking for a help and to investigate the matter, for having lost the laptop, by abusing the powers vested with him. These are the factors not taken note of by the learned Judge while granting the anticipatory bail in favour of respondent No.6."

Finally, the court said "I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where this Court can exercise the powers in setting aside the anticipatory bail granted by the Trial Court, which has been passed without looking into the relevant factors which ought to have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail."