<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court denied bail to a man in a case of sexual assault, citing a verse from Manusmriti and a quote by Mahatma Gandhi. </p><p>"...it is relevant at this point in time to quote the sloka 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. Now, it is also relevant to quote the sayings of Mahatma Gandhiji on freedom, which says, 'The day a woman can walk freely on the road at night, that day we can say that India has achieved independence',” Justice S Rachaiah said. </p>.'An afterthought, act of vengeance', Supreme Court quashes FIR in rape case.<p>The petition was filed by a resident of Mulbagal town in Kolar district, after a special court rejected his bail application. He was accused number 2 in the case for the incident that occurred on April 2, 2025. </p><p>The victim, a 19-year-old native of Banka in Bihar, belongs to ST community while her parents work in a cardamom estate in Kerala. </p><p>She arrived in Bengaluru and got down at the KR Puram railway station around 1.30 am on April 2, 2025. While she was going towards Mahadevapura with her cousin to have food, the petitioner and another man accosted and assaulted them. One of them took her to a nearby place and raped her. </p><p>Public gathered at the place of crime when the victim cried out for help but all the accused managed to escape, except the petitioner. </p><p>Police arrived soon after and arrested him, registering a crime for offences punishable under sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 64 r/w Sections 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. </p>.Touching private parts of minor girl not rape or penetrative sexual assault: Supreme Court.<p>The petitioner claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case, saying he only held the victim’s cousin and did not commit rape. </p><p>The government advocate countered him, pointing out that he had held and threatened the victim’s cousin, thereby facilitating accused number 1 to rape the victim. </p><p>Justice Rachaiah noted that though personal life and liberty of a person are recognised as fundamental rights, such a right has to be exercised sparingly with utmost care and caution. "In this case, the accused committed a heinous offence against an adolescent girl who dreamt about her future and 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 underwent," the court said.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court denied bail to a man in a case of sexual assault, citing a verse from Manusmriti and a quote by Mahatma Gandhi. </p><p>"...it is relevant at this point in time to quote the sloka 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. Now, it is also relevant to quote the sayings of Mahatma Gandhiji on freedom, which says, 'The day a woman can walk freely on the road at night, that day we can say that India has achieved independence',” Justice S Rachaiah said. </p>.'An afterthought, act of vengeance', Supreme Court quashes FIR in rape case.<p>The petition was filed by a resident of Mulbagal town in Kolar district, after a special court rejected his bail application. He was accused number 2 in the case for the incident that occurred on April 2, 2025. </p><p>The victim, a 19-year-old native of Banka in Bihar, belongs to ST community while her parents work in a cardamom estate in Kerala. </p><p>She arrived in Bengaluru and got down at the KR Puram railway station around 1.30 am on April 2, 2025. While she was going towards Mahadevapura with her cousin to have food, the petitioner and another man accosted and assaulted them. One of them took her to a nearby place and raped her. </p><p>Public gathered at the place of crime when the victim cried out for help but all the accused managed to escape, except the petitioner. </p><p>Police arrived soon after and arrested him, registering a crime for offences punishable under sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 64 r/w Sections 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. </p>.Touching private parts of minor girl not rape or penetrative sexual assault: Supreme Court.<p>The petitioner claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case, saying he only held the victim’s cousin and did not commit rape. </p><p>The government advocate countered him, pointing out that he had held and threatened the victim’s cousin, thereby facilitating accused number 1 to rape the victim. </p><p>Justice Rachaiah noted that though personal life and liberty of a person are recognised as fundamental rights, such a right has to be exercised sparingly with utmost care and caution. "In this case, the accused committed a heinous offence against an adolescent girl who dreamt about her future and 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 underwent," the court said.</p>