“That is not the way our women react when they are ravished”: Karnataka HC

WHAT WAS THE ISSUE?

• In the current matter, the High Court was hearing the petition under S. 438 of Cr.PC. seeking Advance Bail.
• Rakesh B (27- years) was accused for the offences punishable under S. 376, S.420 and S. 506 of the IPC and S.66B of the IT Act.
• The accused's initial bail application was rejected by a city court on May 19.
• The petition was opposed by the Respondents – The State of Karnataka. They argued that the petitioner had committed serious offences and granting bail for the same will result in compromising the safety of the society as well as cause problems while securing the accused’s presence for trial and investigation proceedings.
• The Complainant (42 year old HR Manager), in this case, had reported to the  RR Police Station on May 2ndthat she was raped on the false promise of marriage.

WHAT WAS THE DECISION OF THE COURT?

 Justice Krishna S. Dixit, grated the Advance Bail on June 23rd, 2020, on the terms of:

• A Personal Bond to be executed for Rupees One Lakh (Rs. 1,00,000/-) and two securities.
• Restrictions on leaving the jurisdictional limits of the trial court.
• Attendance requirement at the Police Station between 9:00am to 9:00pm, every 2nd and 4th Saturday.

WHAT WERE THE REASONS FOR GRANTING THE BAIL?

• The Court was inclined towards allowing Anticipatory bail to the accused after hearing the submissions from both the counsels.
• The reasons stated are as follows:

• Even thought, the offences charged against the accused was serious in nature, it was stated that “seriousness alone is not a criterion to deny liberty to the citizen when there is prima facie case from the police”
• The complaint provided by the Complainant was not convincing as -

• A letter was identified, which was allegedly written by the Complainant. The contents of the letter stated that, if there was a compromise, the complainant would withdraw the complaint.
• The complainant was not clear on why she was at her workplace late at night (11:00 PM).
• The complainant raised no objections while ‘consuming drinks’ and ‘spending the night together’
• The Complainant had not reported to the police immediately, when the alleged accused who was under the influence of alcohol, had sat in her car.  Further, she had failed to come to the court at an earlier instance when the petitioner was asking for sexual favors.
• “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.”

• In addition, the threat of COVID-19 spreading in the prison.

This order has left people with mixed emotions as in its essence highlights the thinking of the Court that a Woman shouldn’t sleep after she was raped as she was tired. This in a way, ignores situations wherein the woman is not in a position to immediately react after the crime, or situations wherein the relationship with the perpetrator is complicated or the very fact that it takes courage for the victim of rape to call out for help or go to the courts.

Sources:

• https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/unbecoming-of-an-indian-woman-to-sleep-after-being-ravished-not-how-our-women-react-karnataka-hc-while-granting-bail-to-rape-accused
• https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/not-the-way-our-women-react-when-they-are-ravished-karnataka-hc-on-rape-victim-claiming-to-have-slept-after-offence-read-order-158855
• Court Order