The Karnataka High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a police constable accused of deceiving a Dalit woman with false promises of marriage, engaging in physical relations, and later rejecting her because of her Scheduled Caste identity. Justice S. Rachaiah, delivering the judgment on November 3, noted that the complaint’s allegations clearly fall under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and that Section 18A prevents the grant of bail in such cases. The court said, “The averments of the complaint clearly indicate that the accused refused to accept her as his wife on the ground that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The ingredients of the offence are attracted. Therefore, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail.”
The case originates from Amruthur Police Station in Tumakuru district, where both the accused and the victim worked as colleagues. The complaint states that on February 14, 2023, the constable visited the victim’s official residence, expressed his intent to marry her, and conducted a simple marriage ceremony in front of a photograph of Lord Sai Baba. He promised to keep the marriage secret until caste-related issues were resolved. The victim said the accused maintained a physical relationship with her multiple times, repeatedly promising to formally acknowledge the marriage, but instructed her not to wear a mangalsutra. When she pressed him to declare her as his wife, he refused and allegedly assaulted her, citing her caste as the reason.
The FIR filed by the victim invokes Sections 318(2), 352, 115(2), 351(2), 54, and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act as amended in 2015. The case is currently pending trial before the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III at Tumakuru. The trial court had already rejected the accused’s bail application on June 9, prompting an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act, which was dismissed by the High Court.
During the hearing on September 26, the accused’s counsel argued that the case was fabricated, claiming the victim had proposed marriage and filed false charges out of spite. He emphasized the lack of evidence of marriage or sexual exploitation and cited the accused’s personal hardships as a police constable and sole provider for his family. The state, represented by High Court Government Pleader Waheeda M.M., argued that the accused had deliberately misled the victim, maintained a physical relationship, and later rejected her citing her caste, which constitutes a caste-based atrocity under the SC/ST Act. She urged dismissal of the appeal to ensure a fair investigation.
Justice Rachaiah noted the facts, highlighting that both were colleagues whose professional proximity led to intimacy and a purported marriage at the victim’s home. The accused allegedly cohabited with the victim and had sexual relations several times but avoided formally acknowledging the marriage, citing caste concerns. The court concluded that the allegations fulfill the ingredients of offences under the SC/ST Act and upheld the Section 18A bar, dismissing the anticipatory bail plea and remanding the accused to face trial.
