Karnataka High Court denies anticipatory bail to Special Public Prosecutor accused of sexual assault of intern

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to a Special Public Prosecutor KSN Rajesh in a sexual assault and attempt to rape case filed by a second-year law student and intern [KSN Rajesh v The State]..Justice K Natarajan opined that the accused is a practicing advocate who could wield influence over the police and judges. Therefore, he could destroy evidence upon the grant of anticipatory bail, the Court said..The prosecutrix had filed a police complaint in October this year claiming that she was sexually assaulted while working at the KSNR Law Associates office, where the accused was a practicing advocate and a Special Public Prosecutor for Lok Ayukta.The prosecutrix claimed that the accused used to watch her private movements, like combing hair or washing her face, through CCTV footage on his cell phone. It was alleged that he always told that her that he missed her and liked her the most in the office..The assault occurred when there was no one in office except the prosecutrix and the accused. When she wished to leave, the accused forced her to stay and tried to pull her hands, kiss her, made her sit on his lap and molested her by pressing her private parts and breasts. The accused allegedly attempted to commit rape on her, but was unable to. He then threatened to have her killed if she revealed the incident to anyone..The prosecutrix stated that after the incident, the accused attempted to reach a compromise and asked her to make a video stating that nothing happened and her statements were false.However, the prosecutrix ultimately registered a case when she came to know that a document was drawn which contained her statement that all the allegations by her were concocted for monetary gains. The document was drawn up by one Dhruva Hegde, who confessed that he and his family were manipulated by the accused..Pertinently, another case was also filed against the accused, again by a student in the final year of her LLB course, based on similar allegations. The counsel for the accused insisted that bail should be granted, while assuring the Court that he was ready for any investigation.The government counsel argued that the petitioner is required for further investigation and the offences were heinous in nature. It was submitted that evidence may be tampered with if anticipatory bail is granted..The Court agreed with the respondent's counsel, particularly on the allegation that the accused attempted to rape the prosecutrix by misusing his power as an advocate in whose office she was working as an intern..Justice Natarajan noted that the accused tried to take advantage of the innocent victim girl and exploited his position by touching her body inappropriately which comes within the meaning of Sections 354 (outraging woman's modesty) and 376 (rape) read with 511 (offences punishable with imprisonment for life) of the Indian Penal Code.“Even showing the video graph and trying to molest her utilizing her weakness as a student when she was doing internship and working under him amounts to ingredients made out in the IPC shows it is an attempt to commit rape on her,” the judge added..It was acknowledged that even though material on record revealed that no rape was committed, but constant sexual assault was committed on the victim.Further, the High Court considered that another case clearly revealed that the accused had abducted a another woman who was an assistant working in the same office as the accused, took her to the police station along with the other accused and obtained her statement in a bid to destroy evidence. .Opining that the accused would definitely destroy evidence if enlarged on bail, the Court dismissed the petitions..Advocate Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira appeared for the petitioner. The respondent was represented by High Court Government Pleader HS Shankar..[Read Judgment]