The Karnataka High Court denied bail to a man accused of sexually abusing a married woman and forcing her to convert to Islam. The court emphasized the gravity of the allegations in its decision. It ruled that granting bail in such a serious case would be inappropriate. The order highlights the need for strict scrutiny in cases involving coercion and abuse.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court’s Dharwad Bench denied bail to Rafiq, who is accused of sexually assaulting a married woman, unlawfully confining her, and coercing her to convert to Islam.
Justice S. Rachaiah, while dismissing the bail application, described the accused’s actions as “unpardonable” and emphasized that “forcing men or women to convert from one religion to another is a serious issue and stringent action is needed in such cases.”
The court reviewing an appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, challenging the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge in Belagavi.
According to the prosecution, the complainant, a married woman who ran a grocery shop with her mother-in-law, alleged that Rafiq had frequently visited the shop, befriended her, and promised to help her find employment through his political connections. Their relationship reportedly escalated to sexual intercourse.
The victim’s husband became aware of the relationship, resulting in conflicts, after which she left her husband and returned to her parents. Rafiq allegedly blackmailed her into maintaining their relationship, and she stayed with him for four months before moving to a rented home, where he was accused of raping her.
The charge sheet also claimed that Rafiq had arranged for a woman to monitor the victim’s movements and pressured her to convert to Islam and marry him.
On April 15, 2024, her husband found her, leading her to file a police complaint.
In his bail plea, Rafiq argued that the victim, being a mature woman, had voluntarily stayed with him for several months without any complaints, implying a consensual relationship. He also claimed that further custody was unnecessary since the charge sheet had already been filed.
However, the complainant opposed the bail, arguing that if granted, Rafiq would threaten prosecution witnesses and disrupt court proceedings.
Upon reviewing the parties’ arguments, the court highlighted the seriousness of the allegations, which warranted strict legal action.
It noted,
“On going through the averments of the charge sheet, it appears that the appellant herein had confined the victim by keeping a woman to watch her movements and forcing her to convert to Islam.”
The court highlights the importance of ensuring the victim’s safety and the integrity of the trial, concluding that “it is not appropriate to grant bail to the appellant till completion of the evidence of the victim.”
As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and Rafiq was ordered to remain in judicial custody pending trial.
Advocate S.M. Muchhandi represented the appellant.
The respondents were represented by High Court Government Pleader Girija Hiremath, who appeared for the state, and Advocate S.R. Hegde, who represented the complainant.
Case Title: Rafiq v State of Karnataka [CRL.A No. 100477 of 2024]
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
