High Court Decision on Anticipatory Bail
On Friday, the Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to the mother of a man accused of multiple serious offenses, including rape and forcing his wife to convert religions. The charges against the accused man involve allegations of rape, marital cruelty, kidnapping, causing hurt, criminal intimidation, domestic violence, and unauthorized religious conversion. Additionally, he faces charges related to privacy violations under the Information Technology Act.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a complaint filed on March 17. The complainant, the accused man’s wife, alleges that before their marriage, he rendered her unconscious with a drink in February 2025 and subsequently assaulted her sexually. She claims that he recorded inappropriate videos of her, which he used to blackmail her into further non-consensual acts. Furthermore, she accuses him of physical violence during her pregnancy, resulting in the loss of their unborn child.
According to the complainant, the accused coerced her into converting from Hinduism to Islam as a precondition for marriage. She reportedly converted on June 22, 2025, adopted a new name, and married him. The complaint further details that the accused relocated her to various places after marriage and eventually abandoned her and their two-month-old child in Kolkata on January 23 of this year. Upon returning to Bengaluru, she alleges being forced by associates of the accused to record a video claiming she was content in the marriage, followed by the abduction of her infant.
Legal Proceedings and Arguments
The Suddaguntepalya Police Station registered the case against the accused and others under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Information Technology Act, 2008, the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Ordinance, 2022. The accused man’s mother, who also faced charges, sought anticipatory bail, arguing through her counsel that she had no involvement in the alleged crimes.
Justice R. Nataraj, presiding over the case, evaluated the arguments presented. The prosecution argued for custodial interrogation of the mother to ascertain her role. However, Justice Nataraj was not convinced that the gravity of the allegations alone warranted denying anticipatory bail. He noted that the marriage was a love marriage solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, and the offenses against the primary accused were not punishable by death or life imprisonment.
More Read
Justice Nataraj remarked, “The petitioner could not have been denied bail on a specious ground that the offenses are grave. The involvement of the petitioner in an offense under Section 64 of BNS (rape), 2023 appears presently to be remote.” Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to the mother of the accused, with certain conditions.
Representation and Legal Counsel
The petitioner was represented by advocate Afroz Pasha, while the State’s representation was led by High Court Government Pleader Waheeda M M. The court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail underscores the importance of examining the individual circumstances and roles of each accused in complex legal cases.
