The Karnataka High Court granted bail to Advocate G. Devaraje Gowda, accused of rape. The decision, made by Justice M.G. Uma, has sparked interest given Gowda’s history of filing election petitions against political figures.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to Advocate G. Devaraje Gowda, who is accused of rape. The decision, made by Justice M.G. Uma, has attracted considerable attention due to Gowda’s involvement in filing election petitions against various political figures. This article delves into the background of the case, the legal issues involved, and the court’s observations leading to the bail decision.
Background of the Case:
The case against Advocate G. Devaraje Gowda began with a complaint filed by Jyothi, a 36-year-old married woman from Holenarasipura, Hassan District. Jyothi initially lodged the complaint on April 1, 2024, accusing Gowda of multiple offenses, including sexual harassment, voyeurism, criminal trespass, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation. These charges were filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology (IT) Act.
In a further statement on April 10, 2024, Jyothi added allegations of rape, leading to the inclusion of Section 376(1) of the IPC. The addition of this severe charge significantly escalated the legal proceedings against Gowda.
ALSO READ:Kerala High Court Grants Bail to Advocate PG Manu in Rape Case
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue before the court was the decision to grant bail to Gowda under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
The court had to carefully evaluate several critical factors, including:
- The delay in lodging the complaint: The court observed an inordinate delay of about three months in lodging the complaint, with the First Information Report (FIR) being registered on April 1, 2024, and the rape allegation only surfacing in the further statement on April 10, 2024.
- The credibility of the allegations: The court needed to assess the credibility of the allegations made by Jyothi.
- Gowda’s involvement in filing election petitions: Gowda claimed that his involvement in filing election petitions against political figures led to the counter-complaint against him.
In detailed order, Justice M.G. Uma made several crucial observations:
- Delay in Complaint: Justice Uma noted the significant delay in filing the complaint. The court emphasized that the FIR was registered on April 1, 2024, and the more serious allegation of rape was only added in a further statement on April 10, 2024. This delay raised questions about the authenticity and timing of the accusations.
- Credibility of Allegations: The court scrutinized the credibility of the allegations made by Jyothi. Given the delay in lodging the complaint and the subsequent addition of the rape charge, the court found it necessary to consider whether the allegations were made with malicious intent, particularly in light of Gowda’s claim that his legal actions against political figures might have prompted a retaliatory counter-complaint.
- Gowda’s Legal Actions: The court took into account Gowda’s involvement in filing election petitions against political figures. This aspect of the case was critical as it suggested a possible motive for the counter-complaint against Gowda, which might have been intended to discredit or hinder his legal pursuits.
Based on these observations, Justice M.G. Uma granted bail to Advocate G. Devaraje Gowda. The court’s decision underscored the importance of timely and credible complaints in the justice system, highlighting the potential for misuse of legal processes for personal or political gains.
The court has granted bail to advocate G. Devaraje Gowda, entangled in a series of complaints and counter-complaints involving political figures. The judicial proceedings reveal a complex backdrop of litigation, political rivalries, and strategic legal battles that shed light on the underlying motivations and actions of the involved parties.
ALSO READ: Advocate BA Aloor in POCSO Case | Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail
The sequence of events started when Gowda lodged a complaint against Jyothi and her husband, Dharmendra, on March 28, 2024. In a rapid response, Dharmendra filed a counter-complaint just days later, on March 31, 2024. These actions highlight a tumultuous relationship characterized by ongoing legal disputes.
The court noted Gowda’s significant role as an advocate specializing in election petitions, which have notably led to the disqualification of several political figures. This aspect of Gowda’s professional engagement was considered crucial in understanding the motivations behind the complaints, suggesting a politically charged backdrop to the legal skirmishes.
Justice Uma, presiding over the case, remarked-
“All these facts and circumstances must be considered when evaluating the petitioner’s bail application to determine if there is strong prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s involvement in the offenses.”
This statement underscores the multifaceted considerations involved in the judicial process, where legal facts intertwine with political contexts.
Conditions of the Bail
Gowda’s release was contingent on several stringent conditions aimed at ensuring his compliance and continued cooperation with the legal proceedings.
The court ordered Gowda to:
- Furnish a bond of Rs. 2,00,000 along with two sureties for the same amount.
- Refrain from committing similar offences.
- Avoid any actions that might threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses.
- Appear before the court as required.
These conditions reflect the court’s cautious approach, balancing the rights of the individual against the integrity of the judicial process.
Gowda was represented by Senior Advocate Arun Shyam and Advocate M.R. Vijaya Kumar, while the State’s interests were advocated by Senior Public Prosecutor B.A. Belliyappa and High Court Government Pleader K.P. Yashodha. The court emphasized that its observations during the bail hearing were solely for the purpose of this decision and should not influence the upcoming trial’s proceedings on the merits of the case.
