"You're Dalit, I Can't Marry You": Karnataka HC Rejects Constable's Bail in Case of Luring Woman into Marriage and Exploitation

Bengaluru- In a stark condemnation of caste-based discrimination, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a police constable accused of deceiving a Dalit woman with false promises of marriage, engaging in physical relations with her, and later rejecting her on grounds of her Scheduled Caste (SC) identity. Justice S. Rachaiah, in a judgment delivered on November 3, observed that the allegations in the complaint squarely attract the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and that the bar under Section 18A precludes the grant of bail.

The court remarked, "The averments of the complaint clearly indicate that the accused refused to accept her as his wife on the ground that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The ingredients of the offence are attracted. Therefore, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail as there is a bar under Section 18A of the said Act."

Background of the dispute

The case originates from Amruthur Police Station in Tumakuru district, where both the accused constable and the victim were employed as colleagues. According to the prosecution, the ordeal began on February 14, 2023, when the accused visited the victim's official residence near the station. He expressed his intent to marry her and solemnized a simple marriage ceremony in front of a photograph of Lord Sai Baba.

The accused assured the victim to keep the marriage a secret until "caste-related disputes" were resolved. Following this, he maintained a physical relationship with her on multiple occasions, repeatedly promising to publicly acknowledge their union. However, he explicitly forbade her from wearing a mangalsutra, claiming it would cause problems for both.

Trusting his words, the victim remained silent for an extended period. But when she pressed him to declare her as his wife, the accused not only refused but also assaulted her, citing her Scheduled Caste background as the reason, he belonged to a different caste. Devastated and betrayed, the victim finally lodged a complaint, leading to the registration of Crime No. 81/2025 by the Amruthur police.

The FIR invokes Sections 318(2) (cheating), 352 (assault), 115(2) (criminal conspiracy), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 54 (concealment of offence), and 74 (abetment) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Additionally, it includes Sections 3(1)(r) (insult on grounds of caste), 3(1)(s) (deception on caste grounds), 3(1)(w)(i) (caste-motivated offences), and 3(2)(va) (aggravated caste-based offences) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as amended in 2015.

The case is currently pending trial before the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III at Tumakuru. The trial court had rejected the accused's bail application (Crl.Misc.761/2025) on June 9, prompting him to file an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act as Criminal Appeal No. 1363 of 2025 in the Karnataka High Court. The appeal was represented by Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for the state and counsel for the victim, with notice served to the complainant.

Arguments for and against granting bail

The appeal hearing took place on September 26, where the accused's counsel, Dayanand Hiremath, mounted a vigorous defense. He argued that the entire case was fabricated and that the victim had proposed marriage to the accused, who refused, leading her to file false charges out of spite. The counsel contended there was no concrete evidence of a marriage or sexual exploitation, and the caste-based rejection was merely an allegation without proof. He emphasized that mere accusations do not suffice to invoke the offence's ingredients.

Furthermore, he highlighted the accused's personal hardships: As a police constable and the sole breadwinner of his family, continued detention would cause undue hardship. The accused is a permanent resident of Mannapura Village, Sindagi Taluk, Vijayapura District. The counsel urged the court to grant anticipatory bail with stringent conditions, assuring compliance.

In sharp contrast, the state's High Court Government Pleader, Waheeda M.M., vehemently opposed the plea. She pointed to the complaint's details, stating that the accused deliberately trapped the victim in a web of false promises, consummating physical relations multiple times before dodging public acknowledgment of the marriage. When confronted, he cited her caste as the pretext for refusal and resorted to assault. She argued this constituted a blatant caste atrocity under the SC/ST Act. Invoking Section 18A, which imposes a strict bar on bail in such cases to prevent interference with investigations, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal to ensure a fair probe.

The HC's observation

After hearing both sides and meticulously reviewing the complaint records, Justice Rachaiah delivered a reasoned judgment reiterating the facts. He noted that both the victim and accused were constables at Amruthur Police Station, where their professional proximity blossomed into intimacy, culminating in a decision to marry.

Per the victim, the accused performed the marriage at her home before Lord Sai Baba's photo and cohabited as husband and wife, engaging in physical relations several times. Yet, he evaded formal declaration, instructing secrecy due to "caste issues" and assurances of future disclosure. Upon insistence, the betrayal unfolded with caste as the excuse.

The court observed, "According to the complainant, the appellant had married her in her house in front of the photo of Lord Sai Baba and thereafter, he continued to live with her as husband and committed sexual intercourse on several occasions. When she insisted him to declare him as his wife, he was dodging the matter... and she was instructed that she should not disclose... as there are some issues in respect of the caste." Concluding that the allegations fulfill the Act's offence elements, the court upheld the Section 18A bar, dismissing the appeal and remanding the accused to face trial.