The High court of Karnataka granted bail to a rape accused pursuant to the victim’s statement that she fell asleep “after the perpetration of the act”.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit observed that, “the explanation offered by the complainant that after the perpetration of the act she was tired and fell asleep, is unbecoming of an Indian woman; that is not the way our women react when they are ravished.”
The Court gave its decision on an anticipatory bail plea filed by one Rakesh B, who was accused of raping a woman on the false pretext of marriage.
The complainant had alleged that she had been raped on the promises of false marriage. However, the Court observed that the statement of the woman was hard to believe since “there is a letter allegedly written by the complainant herself to the effect that she was ready to withdraw the complaint if a compromise is brought about, especially when the complainant had employed the services of the petitioner since last two years or so; nothing is stated by the complainant as to why she did not approach the Court at the earliest point of time when the petitioner was allegedly forcing her for sexual favours.”
The complainant, a resident of Bengaluru had filed an FIR against her employee under sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating) and 506 (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian penal Code and section 66 B of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Court noted in its order that, “the offences alleged against the petitioner being punishable u/s. 376, 420 & 506 of IPC, 1860 and Sec.66- B of Information Technology Act, 2000 are serious in nature, is arguably true; however, seriousness alone is not the criteria to deny liberty to the citizen when there is no prima facie case from the side of the State Police.”
The complainant further submitted that she had been taken to a hotel for dinner when the accused came and sat in her car in an inebriated state.
On this the bench said that “even if the version is assumed to be true, there is no explanation offered for not alerting the police or the public about the conduct of the petitioner.”
The bench further observed “nothing is mentioned by the complainant as to why she went to her office at 11pm, she has not objected to consuming drinks with the petitioner and allowing him to stay with her till morning. The explanation offered that after the perpetration of the act she was tired and fell asleep is unbecoming of an Indian woman that is not the way pour women react when they are ravished.”
“thus there are sufficient grounds to admit the petitioner to Advance Bail, especially when granting of bail is the rule and denial is an exception, Courts cannot loose sight of COVID-19 pandemic which poses the threat of infection to the detenues in prison,” said the Court while granting bail.
The petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the City Court after which he approached the High court. The High Court granted anticipatory bail with strict conditions.
Read the order here;Karnataka-High-Court
-India Legal Bureau