A Special Public Prosecutor accused of sexually assaulting a law intern was denied bail by the Karnataka High Court.
The SPP, K.S.N. Rajesh, is accused of attempting rape and sexually assaulting a law student who was working in his office as an intern. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in two matters registered at Mangalore woman police station against him under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The single-judge bench of Justice K. Natarajan noted that the petitioner is a practicing advocate and tends to have influence over universities and police officials, including judges, and the court does not intend to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in such a case.
The bench observed that the contents of the complaint reveals that the petitioner attempted rape on the student working in his office. The petitioner clearly misused the situation of the innocent victim girl, and used his position to touch the girl inappropriately which falls within the Sections 354, 376 r/w Section 511 of the IPC. Showing a video and trying to molest the victim and his inability to have intercourse due to early ejaculation without which the prosecutor would have committed rape on the victim by misusing her weakness as a student, clearly satisfies all the ingredients of rape attempt under IPC.
Advocate Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that perusal of records shows that the complaint does not attract Section 376 and 354 of IPC including the subsections (a) (b) (c) and (d).
He further submits that there is a delay in filing the complaint even if the ingredients of Sections 354 and 376 are satisfied, where the prosecutor is alleged to have attempted rape under 376 of IPC which is not punishable by imprisonment or death penalty and it is punishable with three years of imprisonment under Section 354 of IPC.
Sequeira further submitted there may not be any requirement of custodial interrogation for the petitioner as the voice samples can be procured for investigation, the CCTV footage can be retrieved though it is submitted that CCTV footage was destroyed as per the victim. Also there was a medical examination conducted when the petitioner-accused appeared before the police.
Advocate H.S. Shankar, appearing on behalf of the prosecution, submitted that custodial interrogation is required for cross-examining the petitioner; further seizure of petitioner’s mobile is also required for recovering CCTV footage and video clips. The petitioner-accused is an influential person and is also involved in bribing judges and police officials hence if released on anticipatory bail there are high chances that he may destroy the evidences against him.
The bench noted that the petitioner may be available for investigation process as contended by his counsel but accordingly that would not be sufficient and the petitioner may be required for custodial interrogation for procurement of CCTV footage from his phone, video clips from his phone, further voice samples need to be sent to Forensic Science Laboratories (FSL). The offences committed by the petitioner in both the cases are of serious nature, though the offences might not be punishable with imprisonment or death penalty.