Read Time: 07 minutes

In an interesting turn of events, the Karnataka High Court recently allowed the bail application of a rape accused, who had allegedly violated a married woman. 

The court awarded bail after noting that the victim and the accused were in a consensual relationship and that she used to video call him in the morning, when the accused took screenshot images of her private parts. 

"The victim was using the mobile phone of her husband to make a video call to the petitioner. The very fact that the victim used to make a video call to the petitioner in the early morning between 4-5 a.m. shows her consent to the said act", observed Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar of the High Court. 

The accused and victim were in a consensual physical relationship before the latter got married to another. 

After her marriage, the petitioner-accused allegedly had sexual intercourse with the victim and used to make video calls to her between 4 and 5 a.m. early in the morning regularly. During the calls, he asked her to show her private parts, to which she obliged. He used capture her private images in his mobile. 

Subsequently, the calls stopped and this agitated the accused. In an attempt to get back at her, the accused sent her private images to her husband. This prompted the victim to register a complaint against her jilted lover. 

Arrested by the Yelburga Police Station, the accused was charged for the offences under Sections 354C (Voyeurism), 506 (criminal intimidation), 376 (rape), 450 (house-trespass) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act, 2000

After the bail applications moved before Principal District and Sessions Judge Koppal were rejected, the accused approached the High Court.

The petitioner argued that he was in a love affair with the victim prior to her marriage. In fact, even after her marriage, they continued their relationship. All this was consensual, was the petitioner's argument. 

Further, the very fact that the victim used to make video calls to the petitioner between 4-5 a.m. shows her consent, it was pointed out. 

Even the High Court agreed to this aspect. 

The prosecution opposed the plea on the grounds that the offence is heinous in nature. The charge sheet shows prima facie case against the petitioner and if he is granted bail, he would go to the extent of threatening the complainant and tamper the evidence. 

Whether the victim had given consent under the threat of the petitioner or not, is a matter of trial, the Court said. 

The court also observed that criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death of imprisonment for life. 

Accordingly, the Court granted him bail on a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1 lakh with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

The court also asked the petitioner to refrain from indulging in tampering with the prosecution witnesses. And to attend court on all the dates as well as co-operate with the investigation authorities. 

Case Name: Basanagouda @ Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka