The High Court said, "According to the victim, the accused married her in front of a photo of Sai Baba and had physical relations with her several times, but refused to accept her as his wife. When she insisted, he deceived her using caste as an excuse."
Bengaluru – The Karnataka High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a police constable accused in a case where a Dalit woman was deceived in the name of love. The accused had physical relations with the woman after promising marriage, but later broke off the relationship and even assaulted her, citing her Scheduled Caste (SC) identity.
In his judgment delivered on November 3, High Court Justice S. Rachaiah clearly stated that this is a serious offense under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and bail is strictly prohibited under Section 18A. The court stated, “It is clear from the allegations in the complaint that the accused refused to accept her as his wife because she belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The essential elements of the crime are established. Therefore, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 18A of the said Act.”
Learn about the entire case
The case relates to the Amrutur police station in Tumkur district, where both the accused constable and the victim were posted as colleagues. According to the prosecution, the incident began on February 14, 2023, when the accused arrived at the victim’s official residence. There, he expressed his desire to marry her and performed a simple wedding ceremony in front of a picture of Sai Baba. The accused assured the victim that the marriage would be kept secret until the caste dispute was resolved.
Following this, the accused had physical relations with the victim several times, but did not allow her to wear a mangalsutra, fearing it would cause problems for both of them. The victim, trusting him, remained silent. However, when she demanded that the marriage be made public, the accused flatly refused. His excuse was that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste, while he himself belonged to a different caste. Not only did he refuse, but when she insisted on marriage, the accused also assaulted her. Hurt and betrayed, the victim finally filed a complaint, based on which the Amritsar police registered Crime No. 81/2025.
Legal provisions applied in the case
The accused has been charged under sections 318(2) (cheating), 352 (assault), 115(2) (criminal conspiracy), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 54 (concealment of an offence), and 74 (abetment of an offence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 2023, as well as section 3(5). Additionally, sections 3(1)(r) (insult on grounds of caste), 3(1)(s) (cheating on grounds of caste), 3(1)(w)(i) (caste-based offences), and 3(2)(va) (group offences on grounds of caste) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) have also been added.
The case is pending in the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur. The trial court had rejected the accused’s bail plea (CRL.Miss.761/2025) on June 9, against which the accused filed an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act. This appeal was filed in the Karnataka High Court as CRL.A No. 1363/2025, where the SPP appeared for the State and the lawyer appeared for the victim.
The accused said the victim had proposed marriage. The appeal hearing took place on September 26th, where the accused’s lawyer, Dayanand Hiramath, presented a powerful argument. He claimed that the entire case was fabricated and that the victim had proposed marriage. When the accused refused, false allegations were made as revenge. The lawyer stated that there was no concrete evidence that the accused had married or physically abused her. He also refuted the caste-based denial, stating that mere allegations do not prove a crime.
The lawyer also emphasized the accused’s personal hardship. The accused is a police constable and the sole earning member of the family. He is a permanent resident of Manapura village in Sindgi taluk, Vijayapura district. Failure to grant bail would cause financial hardship to the entire family. The lawyer requested that anticipatory bail be granted with strict conditions, stating that the accused is willing to comply with the court’s conditions.
On the other hand, High Court government lawyer Waheeda M.M., representing the state, strongly objected. Citing the facts of the complaint, she argued that the accused deliberately lured the victim into a love affair. He engaged in physical relations with her repeatedly under the false promise of marriage, but when it came to granting her wifely status, he used caste as an excuse. She stated that the accused refused to recognize the victim as his wife and assaulted her. This constituted clear caste-based atrocity under the SC/ST Act. The lawyer cited Section 18A, which prohibits bail in such cases, and demanded that the appeal be dismissed so as not to hamper the investigation.
The High Court rejected the bail plea for this reason.
After hearing arguments from both parties, the High Court thoroughly reviewed the complaint record. Justice Rachaiah reiterated the facts in the judgment. He wrote that both the accused and the victim worked as constables at the Amritur police station. They grew close, leading to a decision to marry. According to the victim, the accused married her in front of a photo of Sai Baba at her home and began living as husband and wife. They had physical relations several times, but he avoided making a public announcement. When the victim insisted, the accused deceived her by citing caste.
The court stated, “According to the victim, the accused married her in front of a photo of Sai Baba and engaged in physical relations several times, but refused to accept her as his wife. When she insisted, he deceived her by citing caste.” The court held that the allegations in the complaint attracted elements of the offense under the SC/ST Act. Therefore, bail cannot be granted due to the prohibition of Section 18A. The appeal was dismissed, and the accused will have to face trial.
Geetha Sunil Pillai
Courtesy: Hindi News