Karnataka High Court cancels bail to rape accused police officer for suppressing facts; imposes ₹1 lakh costs

The Karnataka High Court recently directed its Registrar General to file a complaint against a constable, accused of rape, for obtaining bail by suppression of material facts before the trial court..Justice HP Sandesh also cancelled the order granting regular bail to the accused and remarked that it was necessary to curb such conduct of committing fraud on the court.The same has to be dealt with by imposing heavy cost, the Court remarked while imposing costs of ₹1 lakh on the accused police constable.“It is also appropriate to direct the Registrar General to file a complaint before the jurisdictional police narrating all these facts by himself or authorizing a person to file a complaint before the Vidhana Soudha police and the matter has to be probed since on this Court as well as on the Trial Court, respondent No.2 [accused] has committed fraud which comes within the limits of Vidhana Soudha police station,” the order stated..The Court was hearing a petition moved by the victim for cancellation of bail granted to accused Fakirappa Hatti by a trial court in June 2023. The victim, a 27-year-old woman, in February 2022 accused Hatti of sexual exploitation from 2019 on the false promise of marriage..On a petition moved by the victim, the High Court in July 2022 had cancelled the anticipatory bail of the accused. In the present petition, the Court was told that soon after the cancellation of his bail, the accused had filed a petition before the High Court for quashing of the First Information Report (FIR), and managed to obtain a stay on investigation after suppressing the fact regarding cancellation of his pre-arrest bail.The order was later vacated by the High Court and the Deputy Commissioner of Police was asked to explain why the accused was not being arrested.Soon thereafter, the accused surrendered before the trial court and then moved for regular bail by suppressing the different orders of the High Court, the victim said.Seeking cancellation of the regular bail, the victim contended that the accused had misled both the trial court as well as the High Court by suppressing material facts..After considering the facts, the Court first found that the accused had abused the process by suppressing the facts about the cancellation of his bail in the petition seeking quashing of the FIR. It then took into account the conduct of the accused before the trial court in the proceedings for regular bail and found that he had suppressed the material facts regarding orders passed by the High Court there as well..The Court also found that the prosecution had not properly apprised the trial court about the earlier proceedings and the investigating officer had indirectly helped the accused in obtaining bail.“It is clear that it is nothing but a fraud on the Court and he had gone to the extent of indulging in these acts that too being a police constable which is the department of maintaining of law and order,” the Court remarked..Thus, the Court set aside the order granting bail to the accused and ordered the Deputy Commissioner of Police to take the accused into custody.It also ordered the accused to pay a cost of ₹1 lakh to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks..Meanwhile, the Court directed the Director Prosecution to instruct public prosecutors that they are duty-bound to supply necessary information to the courts regarding pendency or decisions in related cases. The Court also directed the Registrar General to send a copy of the present judgment to the judicial officer who granted the accused bail, and to keep it in his service record.“Inspite of a reference was made in the bail application about cancellation of bail order, he [judge] did not look into the order passed by this Court with regard to cancellation of bail of respondent No.2 [accused] and proceeded to grant the bail without referring the same,” the Court said. .Advocates Raghavendra Gowda K and Mohankumara D represented the complainant.Advocate K Nageshwarappa represented the State.Advocate MR Nanjunda Gowda represented the accused..[Read Order]