Karnataka HC says it’s ‘unbecoming of our women to sleep after rape’, grants bail to accused

‘That is not the way our women react when they are ravished ,’ the court observed

sexual-assault-case-karnataka-high-court The Karnataka High Court allowed the pre-arrest bail of the man accused of rape

The Karnataka High Court has allowed bail to an accused in a rape case after observing that the victim fell asleep after the act and it was “unbecoming of an Indian woman” to sleep after being “ravished”.

In an order passed earlier this week, the single-Judge bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit said that it is not the way “our women react when they are ravished”, as per a report in LiveLaw.in

“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,” Dixit said.

The high court allowed the pre-arrest bail plea for a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000, directing the accused to not leave the jurisdictional limits of the court without permission. He was further told to mark his attendance at the jurisdictional police station every alternate Saturday.

The accused, who was booked under Sections 376 (sexual assault), 420 (Cheating) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC and under Section 66-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, had approached the high court seeking anticipatory bail.

The accused has been in the employ of the victim for the past two years. It is alleged that the accused had sexual relations with in the pretext of marriage. The victim said that on the night of the incident, the accused had accompanied her to the office, where he raped her.

According to reports, during the course of the hearing, the high court questioned the legitimacy of the case citing that the victim “voluntarily” had drinks with the accused and waited till morning to file a complaint. Dixit also observed that the victim did not mention why she went to office at 11pm.

“The version of the complainant that she had been to Indraprastha Hotel for dinner and that the petitioner having consumed drinks came and sat in the car, even if 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 court observed.