Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Advocate KSN Rajesh, accused of sexually harassing a law intern while observing that he could possibly influence the police, university and judges in the case.
Rajesh, who was absconding after the sexual harassment was filed against him on October 18, surrendered before the local court in Mangaluru on Monday, December 20. The third JMFC court of the city remanded him to four days of police custody
His counsel argued that based on the content of the victim’s complaint, it is not possible to file a rape case under IPC Section 376.
He said the victim is maintaining that CCTV footage has been destroyed. However, they could be retrieved even now. He further argued that as the petitioner has been subjected to medical tests there is no need for the police to take him into custody and investigate. Hence, anticipatory bail could be granted to him, the counsel added.
The public prosecutor objected to this and told the court that it is necessary for the police to take him into custody for further inquiry. His mobile has to be seized to retrieve CCTV footage and video clips.
The accused is an influential person and it is said that he could bribe the system. The case against the accused is heinous in nature. There is all possibility of him destroying evidence in the case, he added.
The bench after hearing the argument and counter arguments observed that there is rape charge against the accused. If the content of the complaint by the victim is considered, it appears that the accused had attempted to rape the victim who was working as an intern. However, as the victim was alert, the possibility of her becoming a rape victim has been averted.
“The accused’s acts of touching the body of innocent victim by misusing his position could be considered as rape or attempt to rape. It appears that the accused has tried to misuse the weakness of the victim by showing her videos. The police are required to take him into their custody and seize CCTV, mobile, chats and other evidence,” it said.
The bench quashed the request of the accused by saying even as there are no charges which would attract capital punishment or life term, anticipatory bail can’t be provided for a case of such a serious nature.
With IANS inputs