Bengaluru, June 25: Granting advance bail to a rape accused, the Karnataka High Court has expressed its reservations about the genuineness of the complainant’s case while observing that her explanation that “after the perpetration of the act she was tired and fell asleep, is unbecoming of an Indian woman”.
The court also found it difficult to believe at this stage that the complainant was subjected to rape on the false promise of marriage “in the given circumstances of the case”, NDTV reported.
The complainant is the employer of the accused for the past two years, it noted.
“Nothing is mentioned by the complainant as to why she went to her office at 11 pm; she has also not objected to consuming drinks with the petitioner and allowing him to stay with her till morning; 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,” Justice Krishna S Dixit observed.
“This is not the way our women react when they are ravished,” the judge further observed while allowing the plea on June 22.
Agreeing that the charges of rape, cheating and intimidation against the petitioner were serious in nature, the court observed that “seriousness alone is not the criteria to deny liberty to the citizen when there is no prima facie case from the police.”
The court took note of a letter allegedly written by the complainant that she would withdraw the complaint if a compromise was brought about.
“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 court observed.
Further, the judge also found no ground to deny the accused advance bail as the woman did not offer any explanation for not alerting the police or the public about the conduct of the petitioner when she had been to a hotel for dinner and the petitioner, having consumed drinks, came and sat in the car.
The court imposed a slew of conditions on the petitioner while granting him the relief including the execution of a personal bond of Rs one lakh and not tampering with evidence.