Delhi High Court grants anticipatory bail to tutor in rape case

New Delhi [India], August 8 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a home tutor in an alleged rape case.

The court while granting bail, noted that physical relations between the petitioner and prosecutrix continued for about two years before lodging the FIR.

The accused, who is 10 years younger than the complainant, has cooperated with the investigation, and a chargesheet has been submitted. However, allegations of blackmail and threats to disseminate the complainant’s photographs have not been substantiated, as the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report is still pending.

“Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with one surety in the like amount,” said the bench of Anoop Kumar Mendiratta.

The FIR was lodged in the present case upon a statement of a lady who alleged that she appointed the accused as a tutor to give home tuition to her children. Petitioner expressed his intentions to marry her, and on aforesaid assurance, he established physical relations with prosecutrix against her will. She further alleged that she paid a sum of Rs 7 lakh to the petitioner for the completion of his MBA. However, the accused married someone else in the year 2021.

Advocates Ravi Drall and Aditi Drall, who appeared for the accused, argued that relations between the petitioner and prosecutrix were consensual, as both of them had been closely known to each other for many years.

Drall argued that before the registration of the present FIR, the prosecutrix had visited the house of the petitioner and created a scene, on which a complaint was registered under sections 323/452/506/34 IPC with the police.

Upon examination, no photographs or videos of the complainant were found on the accused’s mobile phone, which has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for further analysis. It was noted that the complainant, a widow and a professional teacher, was an adult who was aware of her actions and their implications.

On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, along with a prosecutrix, opposed the application. It was urged that the relationship was established on the pretext of marriage, and the petitioner also threatened to make the photographs of the prosecutrix viral.

APP also informed that the mobile phone of the petitioner has been sent for FSL examination and a report in this regard has yet to be received to corroborate the allegations.