Karnataka HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Assaulting Woman, Threatening To Upload Her Video, Citing Co-Accused’s Bail

The complainant alleged that Accused No. 1 had a physical relationship with the victim on an assurance of marriage, recorded a video, and gave it to the petitioner (Accused No. 2). The petitioner and another accused allegedly threatened to upload the video on social media; the petitioner was also alleged to have assaulted the victim with his hands and legs and with a rope.

The victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS also implicated the petitioner in assault and criminal intimidation.

After the Sessions Court rejected his anticipatory-bail application, the petitioner sought relief from the High Court.

Accused No. 1 and Accused Nos. 3 to 5 had been enlarged on bail.

The petition was considered under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (identified in the judgment as corresponding to Section 438 of the CrPC), which provides for anticipatory bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 69, 308(1), 74, 115(2), 79, 351(2), 61, 318(4) and 190 of the BNS, 2023, and Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act.

In deciding bail, the Court stated that relevant considerations include the nature and circumstances of the offence, the petitioner’s position in relation to the victim and witnesses, risk of absconding or reoffending, possible witness tampering, and the petitioner’s character and antecedents.

A bail court need not conduct a mini-trial or finally assess the prosecution case.

The Court acknowledged the allegations that the petitioner assaulted the victim and threatened to disseminate the video, including the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS.

It nevertheless considered that Accused No. 1, against whom the principal allegation of rape was made, and Accused Nos. 3 to 5 had been granted bail.

Having regard to the co-accused’s bail status and the material on record, the Court concluded that there were no reasonable and sufficient grounds at that stage to believe the petitioner guilty of the alleged offences.

It therefore found anticipatory bail appropriate without conducting a mini-trial.

Release was subject to a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety for the like sum; surrender before the investigating officer within 15 days of receiving the certified order; attendance before the jurisdictional court on hearing dates; non-interference with prosecution witnesses; monthly attendance before the investigating officer on the first Sunday for six months or until filing of the charge-sheet, whichever occurred earlier; and refraining from further offences.

Breach of conditions would permit the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.