Last Updated:
The court concluded that the allegations reflected an act of moral degradation rather than an isolated lapse
The girl revealed that five men had repeatedly raped her between May and June 2024. File Image
In a scathing order, the Karnataka High Court has refused to grant bail to a 68-year-old man accused of gang-raping a 14-year-old girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste, terming his conduct a “ruthless act” that exploited the child’s vulnerability, poverty, and innocence.
Recommended Stories
Justice S Rachaiah, while hearing the criminal appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, said the appellant, being an elderly man, was expected to restrain others from such an inhuman act, not participate in it.
The accused, Channappar @ Rajaiah @ Angadi Raja, had approached the court seeking to set aside a July 15, 2025, order of the Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Mandya, which had denied him bail. The case, registered at KR Pete Rural Police Station in 2024, involves multiple charges under the IPC, POCSO Act, and SC/ST Act, including gang rape and aggravated sexual assault of a minor.
According to the prosecution, the case came to light after a doctor at a government hospital informed the minor’s mother about her pregnancy. Upon inquiry, the girl revealed that five men had repeatedly raped her between May and June 2024. Investigators later charged all five men, alleging that they lured the victim with food and new clothes to exploit her sexually.
The chargesheet detailed how the child was targeted. It stated that “the accused induced the victim by promising her eatables and new clothes, thereby taking advantage of her poverty and innocence”.
Appearing for Channappar, advocate Shankar HS urged the court to consider his client’s advanced age and the fact that he has been in custody since December 2024. He further argued that the DNA sample of the accused did not match the foetus, suggesting that he was not directly responsible for the pregnancy, a point raised as a major ground for bail.
However, opposing the plea, government counsel Pushpalatha and the victim’s lawyer Maitreyi Krishnan maintained that the accused’s age could not justify his release. They stressed that the accused, old enough to be the victim’s grandfather, had committed a “heinous act” that demanded no sympathy from the court.
After reviewing the case record and hearing both sides, the court concluded that the allegations reflected an act of moral degradation rather than an isolated lapse.
“The appellant being an elderly person should have advised and instructed others not to commit such a heinous offence or brought it to the notice of elders of the village,” Justice Rachaiah remarked.
About the Author
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr…Read More
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr… Read More
October 08, 2025, 02:58 IST
Loading comments…
Read More
