Karnataka High Court’s Decision on Bail for 75-Year-Old Accused
The Karnataka High Court has recently granted bail to a 75-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting his daughter-in-law, a decision influenced by the daughter-in-law’s lack of objection to his release. This significant ruling was delivered by Justice MGS Kamal on May 14, where the court acknowledged the ongoing amicable settlement between the involved parties.
Justice Kamal noted, “Though allegations are made in the complaint against accused No.1—petitioner herein of harassment, respondent No.2-defacto complainant (daughter-in-law)… submits that matter is being settled amicably and that she has no objection for grant of bail in favour of the accused No.1-petitioner herein.”
Details of the Allegations
The accused had sought bail from the High Court following a complaint filed by the East Women Police Station in Bengaluru. The complaint included charges of repeated sexual assault, harassment, and mental cruelty within the matrimonial home. The FIR cited multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), such as Sections 64(2)(f) and 64(2)(m) (aggravated sexual assault), 75 and 76 (cruelty and assault), 85 (causing harm), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), and 352(2) (assault or criminal force).
State’s Opposition and Accused’s Defense
The State opposed the bail plea, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations involving sexual violence and arguing that such offenses should typically prevent the granting of bail. Conversely, the defense argued that the accused had been wrongfully implicated in the context of familial disputes between the daughter-in-law and her husband, the accused’s son. The defense also highlighted the absence of specific details regarding the time, date, or evidence of the alleged offenses.
High Court’s Consideration and Ruling
The court considered the accused’s prolonged custody of nearly eight months and his advanced age as pertinent factors. Moreover, the daughter-in-law’s personal appearance in court and her counsel’s statement of non-objection were crucial in the court’s decision to grant bail.
The court’s ruling stated, “Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant bail as sought for.” The bail was granted under specific conditions, including the submission of a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties, mandatory appearances before the trial court, and prohibitions against threatening or influencing prosecution witnesses.
Advocate Syed Naseeruddin represented the petitioner, while Advocates Sunil S Rao and Kishor Kumar RS appeared for the daughter-in-law. The State was represented by Advocate Channappa Erapa.
To read the full court order, refer to the case titled XXX vs YYY, Karnataka HC, LawLens.
