It has been close to 8 years since the Nirbhaya rape case had us seething in anger. And as revolting, as the incident was, what came across as even more shocking was how some people reacted to it. While there shouldn’t have been any two ways about the gruesome incident in the first place, there happened to be those asked questions like “But why was she roaming so late in the night?” and “who was the man with her that night?” with a few of them even suggesting that she could have avoided her fate had she not resisted, uttered some godforsaken mantra or addressed her rapists as brothers.
Earlier this year in March, four of the convicts in the case were finally hanged to death. However, even after all this time, not much seems to have changed, at least when it comes to the regressive and highly problematic mindsets. In a shocking incident recently, the Karnataka high court granted bail to 27-year-old rape accused by quoting that “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.”
As per media reports, the complainant is a 42-year-old woman who had lodged the rape complaint against one of her employees last month. Following the complaint, an FIR had been registered under IPC sections 376, Section 420 (cheating) and 506 (criminal intimidation), and Section 66-B of Information Technology Act 2000. An earlier request by an advance bail on May 19th was rejected by a city court observing the “serious nature” of the crime. However, the seriousness of the crime didn’t sound like a reason strong enough to curtail the accused’s “liberty” to justice Justice Krishna S Dixit who after assessing his petition said that the complainant’s claim that she was raped on the false promise of a marriage is hard to believe.
But wait, he didn’t stop just there and actually went on to add,
Nothing is mentioned by the complainant as to why she went to her office at night i.e. 11.00 PM; she has also not objected to consuming drinks with the petitioner and allowing him to stay with her till morning.