Image Courtesy:manasmediaonline.com
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar of the Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner/rape accused, highlighting that his name was tattooed on the prosecutrix’s arm and that it is not easy to make such a tattoo “if there is some resistance from the other side”.
According to the prosecutrix, the petitioner engraved the tattoo on her arm forcefully when she was in captivity in his house from January 25 to April 15, 2020. But the judge said, “In my opinion, making a tattoo is an art and a special machine is required for the same. Moreover, it is also not easy to make such a tattoo which is on the forearm of the complainant if there is some resistance from the other side. It is not everybody’s job and it is also not the case of the prosecutrix that the petitioner had anything to do with the tattoo business”.
She further submitted that the alleged accused showed her nude photos, videos and blackmailed her to have physical relations with him. According to the complainant, he continued this till May, 2019. But the petitioner alleged that he has been falsely implicated because he refused to marry her.
He said that it was a consensual relationship which is evident from the fact that the prosecutrix got the name of the petitioner permanently tattooed on her forearm which “shows her love towards the petitioner”. He also argued that the prosecutrix herself emailed him the picture of her tattoo twice. He further submitted that there is a delay of about 7 months in the registration of the FIR and in the four years of association with her, she never revealed or said anything to her husband. He had submitted that she was already married when he met her.
The court perused the status report which revealed that at the time of arrest, the mobile phone of the petitioner was seized but no nude photographs were found and there was also no recording of threats in the phone, as alleged by the prosecutrix.
Justice Bhatnagar referred to the charge sheet that revealed that the said house, in which the complainant was allegedly held captive, was taken on rent by her and the enquiries from the landlord revealed that the prosecutrix was residing alone in the said house.
On the issue of FIR, the court said, “There is a delay in registration of FIR, though delay is not fatal in every case but at this stage, no opinion is being expressed on the aspect of delay in lodging the FIR”.
In view of this, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition and granted him bail.
The order may be read here:
Related:
Rakhi for bail order: Petitioners move SC for directions
Women lawyers move SC against Madhya Pradesh HC ‘Rakhi for Bail’ order
Groping minor without physical contact, not sexual assault under POCSO Act: Bombay HC