Karnataka High Court Rejects Bail Plea in Heinous Crime Case
Accused No. 2's bail application denied to maintain public confidence and ensure justice for the victim.
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has denied the bail application of Syed Parveez Mushraff, who was implicated as accused No. 2 in a heinous crime involving the facilitation of rape. The judgment was delivered by Mr. S Rachaiah, J., in the Criminal Appeal No. 1493 of 2025. The appellant, Syed Parveez Mushraff, sought bail after being charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The case, which has garnered public attention due to its severe nature, involves the assault and rape of a young woman in Bengaluru. According to the prosecution, the victim, a 19-year-old, was visiting family in Kerala before traveling to Bengaluru. On her way to have food with her cousin, the victim was wrongfully restrained, and accused No. 1 allegedly committed rape while accused No. 2 restrained her cousin.
The court's decision hinged on several factors, including the severity of the crime, prima facie evidence, and the societal impact. The court observed that the actions of the accused contributed to a significant breach of societal trust and the victim's life was severely impacted. The court emphasized the importance of women's safety and the need to maintain public confidence, quoting Manusmriti and Mahatma Gandhi on the sanctity of women's freedom and independence.
The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Naushad Pasha, argued for bail on grounds of false implication and the appellant's non-involvement in the actual act of rape. However, the Additional State Public Prosecutor, Smt. Pushpalatha, argued against the bail, highlighting the appellant's role in facilitating the crime and threatening the victim's cousin, thereby supporting accused No. 1's actions.
The court reiterated the legal principles governing bail applications, focusing on the nature of the accusation, the severity of the potential punishment, and the need to protect the victim and society. Ultimately, the court concluded that granting bail would undermine public confidence in the legal system and dismissed the appeal.
Bottom Line:
Bail application of accused No. 2 rejected considering the heinous nature of the offence, facilitation of the crime, and the need to preserve the confidence of women and the public at large.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 64 r/w Sections 3(5); Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v).
Sri Syed Parveez Mushraff v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2785816
