The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad has dismissed an advocate’s appeal seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of repeated sexual assault, criminal intimidation and caste-based abuse. Justice Rajeshwari N. Hegde declined relief, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the need to investigate digital and financial evidence.
The complaint was registered by Shahapura Police in Crime No. 67/2026. The woman alleged that the advocate had sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions, threatened her, taken private photographs and videos, and subjected her to caste-based abuse. The allegations included offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The advocate denied the allegations and claimed that the complaint was false. He argued that the alleged incident began in January 2024, but the complaint was filed only in May 2026. He also claimed that a financial dispute involving a loan of ₹5 lakh had led to the complaint.
The Sessions Court had rejected his anticipatory bail application on June 30, 2026, prompting him to approach the High Court.
Justice Rajeshwari N. Hegde considered the submissions made by the advocate, the State and the victim's counsel. The State and the victim opposed bail, relying on the statutory restrictions under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act and the seriousness of the allegations.
The Court noted that the investigation involved several forms of evidence, including digital material and financial records. It observed, “there are private videos, Phone pay transactions, financial records, lodge registers, digital photographs, WhatsApp messages, all these have to be investigated by the Investigating Officer.”
The victim's counsel also submitted that the delay in filing the complaint was explained by the alleged threats and sexual harassment. The counsel expressed concern that granting bail could expose the woman and her family to further threats.
After considering these submissions, the Court found the allegations serious and held that the material identified for investigation required examination by the investigating officer.
The High Court concluded that the advocate was not entitled to anticipatory bail. It recorded, “for these reasons this Court is of the opinion that, the accused/appellant is not entitled to grant anticipatory bail.”
Accordingly, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the criminal appeal challenging the Sessions Court's order.
Case Title: Satteppa S/o Laxmappa Jogati v. State of Karnataka and Another
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 100390 of 2026
-300x169.webp&w=2048&q=75)