Rape Case: Delhi HC Denies Anticipatory Bail to Home Tutor

The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a home tutor in an alleged rape case. In its decision, the court noted that the physical relations between the petitioner and the prosecutrix continued for approximately two years before the FIR was lodged.

The accused, who is 10 years younger than the complainant, has cooperated with the investigation, and a chargesheet has been filed. 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,” stated Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta.

The FIR was filed based on the statement of a woman who claimed that she appointed the accused as a tutor for her children. She alleged that the petitioner expressed his intention to marry her, and based on this assurance, established physical relations with her against her will. She further alleged that she paid Rs 7 lakh to the petitioner for the completion of his MBA. The accused married someone else in 2021.

Advocates Ravi Drall and Aditi Drall, representing the accused, argued that the relations between the petitioner and the prosecutrix were consensual, as they had been closely acquainted for many years. Drall argued that before the FIR was registered, the prosecutrix had visited the petitioner’s house and created a scene, resulting in a complaint being 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 the prosecutrix, opposed the bail application. It was argued that the relationship was established under the pretext of marriage, and the petitioner also threatened to make the complainant’s photographs viral. The APP informed that the petitioner’s mobile phone has been sent for FSL examination, and the report is yet to be received to corroborate the allegations.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International