BENGALURU: Expressing concern over the increase in crimes affecting the modesty of women, the school and college students, a city civil and sessions court refused to grant bail to a 27-year-old Rapido bike driver who allegedly sexually assaulted a woman.
The petitioner has committed an offence against a woman, which affects her self-esteem and the respect, said E Rajeeva Gowda, XLV, Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, rejecting the bail application of the accused Mahesh Yamanoor, residing in Hoodi in the city.
“In fact, nowadays, these types of activities have been increasing in society, which is definitely causing a lot of disturbance and mental agony to the general public, especially to women, school and college students. Due to this, it affects the modesty of women. As such, these type of activities has to be pinched off at the initial stage,” the court observed.
In the complaint filed with the HAL police station, the victim alleged that on September 7, 2025, at 9 am, she booked a Rapido bike from the Kundalahalli Metro Station towards her PG. While the ride was on, the rapido driver touched her thigh.
When she objected, he said sorry and continued driving. After the drop at the destination, the rider was watching porn on his mobile and his private parts were exposed, and he was masturbating. She told him that she would not pay. At that time, he blocked her and said she was so hot.
The petitioner claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case without any cogent evidence of involvement. However, the public prosecutor has filed objections to the bail application, stating that there are sufficient materials to show that the petitioner is involved in non-bailable offences.
The investigation is on, and the custodial interrogation is required. If he is released on bail, there is a chance to repeat the same incident with the victim, and there is also a threat to the life of the complainant and witnesses, he said.
The court noted that the victim, aged about 25 years, had been subjected to sexual harassment. After considering both sides’ submissions, it is very clear that the petitioner utilised the public platform to circulate obscene content and cause sexual harassment against the complainant.