'Act Will Remain As A Scar In Her Life': Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Facilitating Co-Accused Rape A Woman

Quoting Mahatma Gandhi who had said, "The day a woman can walk freely on the road at night, that day we can say that India has achieved independence”, the Karnataka High Court rejected a man's bail plea who is accused of facilitating the co-accused to commit rape on 19-year-old girl.

Justice S Rachaiah, rejected the appeal filed by appellant Syed Praveez Musharaff who along with co-accused has been booked under BNS sections 115(2)(Voluntarily causing hurt), 126(2)(wrongful restraint), 351(criminal intimidation), 64(rape), 3(5)(common intention) and provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, noting that the appellant also had the intention to commit rape upon the victim.

It further said “In this case, the accused had committed a heinous offence against an adolescent girl who dreamt about her future and also aimed towards her life and its goal. The act committed by the accused along with another accused will remain in her life as a scar. It would be very difficult for her to come out of the agony that she had undergone.”

The bench quoted a shloka of Manusmriti which says “Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra Devata, yatraitaastu na pujyante sarvaastatrafalaah kriyaah”, which means, where women are honoured, divinity blossoms there, and where women are dishonoured, all actions, no matter how noble, remain unfruitful.

Following which it held “It is appropriate to reject the bail by dismissing the Criminal Appeal.”

The prosecution argued that on April 2 at around 03.30 a.m., the complainant lodged a complaint stating that she was residing along with her parents. She had come to Kattappan village in Kerala, where her sister and brother-in-law were residing and working in the cardamom garden.

As she was not interested in the work, she decided to go back to her native place. On April 1 boarded a Bengaluru bound train from Ernakulam railway station and got down at K.R.Puram railway station at around 01.30 A.M. on April 2.

The complainant and her cousin brother were proceeding towards Mahadevapura to have food, in the meantime, they were wrongfully restrained and were assaulted by the appellant and the co-accused.

The co-accused took the victim to a nearby place and had raped her. Thereafter, she cried for help, and the public started gathering. On seeing the public, the accused persons tried to escape but one of them was caught by the public, and were later taken into custody by the police.

The accused argued that he is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He argued that he had not raped the complainant. It was argued that the appellant was was holding the complainant's brother while accused No.1 stated to have committed sexual intercourse upon the victim.

The prosecution opposed the plea submitting that the manner in which these two men behaved with the victim really creates doubt in the mind of the women as to whether they have independence or not. The prosecution argued that in order to secure the confidence in the minds of young women and also the public at large, it is necessary to reject the bail.

The bench on going through the records said “ The accused No.1 took the victim to a nearby place and committed sexual intercourse. The appellant herein had facilitated the accused No.1 to commit the said offence by holding C.W.2. The manner in which the appellant had committed the offence against the victim is considered as heinous in nature. He had an intention to commit rape on the victim.”

It referred to the parameters which are required to be considered–the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, prima-facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

The bench thus held “The Court usually has to consider all the above parameters to consider the bail application. No doubt, the personal life and liberty of a person are recognized as fundamental rights. However, such a right has to be exercised sparingly with utmost care and caution.”

Accordingly it dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Syed Parveez Mushraff AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1493 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 323

Appearance: Advocate Naushad Pasha for Appellant.

ADSPP Pushpalatha for R1.

Click Here To Read/Download Order