Delhi HC grants bail to rape accused citing name tattoo on victim's forearm

On Friday, Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man accused of rape and forcefully tattooing his name on the woman's forearm after keeping her in captivity. The accused claimed they were in a consensual relationship and she herself got his name tattooed.

“In my opinion, making of tattoo is an art and 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,” said Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar in the order.

According to the case registered by police under IPC sections 376 and 506 in 2020, the woman met the accused in connection with mortgaging of a property in 2016. On September 29, 2016, he allegedly gave her a cold drink following which she lost consciousness. When she regained consciousness, he allegedly showed her 'nude' photos and videos of her. She was then allegedly blackmailed to have physical relations with him. She told the police that it continued till May 2019.

The accused’s counsel told the High Court he has remained in judicial custody since June 23, 2020, and has been falsely implicated. The counsel said that the woman, who is married, was in a consensual relation with the accused. She has got his name tattooed on her forearm and sent the photograph of the tattoo to his email on two occasions. The case was registered only when she failed to convince him to maintain ties, the counsel claimed.

The court said that the woman did not make any complaint against the accused and did not inform her husband either for three years. She alleged that she was confined in the house by the accused last year, but according to the charge-sheet the said house was taken on rent by herself and enquiries from the landlord revealed she was residing alone in the said house.

The High Court also said that the status report filed by the police reveals there were no recording of threats as alleged by the woman and, therefore, her mobile was not seized.

Source: news.abplive.com, indianexpress.com

Written by Siddhant Sharma