Mathivanan Durai Alias Adharsh vs State
4 May, 2023
Bench: G Basavaraja
Background of the Case:
The complainant, Deepika, filed a complaint with the police, alleging that Mathivanan Durai Alias Adharsh had raped her on a specific date. She stated that the accused, who was previously employed in the same company as her, had visited her house and expressed his desire to marry her. When she rejected his proposal, he forcefully raped her in his rented room. The complainant further claimed that the accused began to harass and blackmail her after the incident, threatening to disclose the incident to her parents unless she complied with his demands.
Arguments Presented:
During the bail hearing, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the victim had maintained a consensual relationship with the accused, even after the alleged incident of rape. It was claimed that the victim wanted the accused to divorce his wife and marry her. The defense further highlighted that the complainant celebrated her birthday with the accused after the incident, suggesting a continued association between them. Additionally, the defense pointed out that the complainant had not undergone a medical examination as required by Section 164(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C).
Court’s Analysis and Decision:
Justice G Basavaraja critically examined the arguments presented by both parties and assessed the circumstances of the case. The court noted the delay in filing the complaint, which occurred approximately two months after the alleged incident. While considering the gravity of the offense, the court found that there was an inadequate explanation for the delay in reporting the crime. However, after careful deliberation, the court concluded that there were no compelling reasons to deny bail to the accused.
The court imposed certain conditions upon the grant of bail. The accused was directed to execute a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and provide one surety of the same amount. Moreover, the accused was ordered not to tamper with or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Additionally, the accused was required to cooperate with the investigating officer during the ongoing investigation.
Analysis and Implications:
The Karnataka High Court’s decision to grant bail in this case has sparked discussions regarding the interpretation and application of the law in cases involving sexual offenses. The court’s evaluation of the delay in filing the complaint and the existence of a consensual relationship between the parties has raised questions about the threshold for granting bail in such circumstances. This ruling serves as a reminder of the complex legal considerations and challenges faced by the judiciary when dealing with cases of sexual offenses.
Conclusion:
The Mathivanan Durai Alias Adharsh case, with its grant of bail by the Karnataka High Court, has generated significant debate surrounding the dynamics of consent, delay in reporting, and the factors influencing judicial decisions. As the case progresses, it will be important to closely monitor how the legal system navigates the delicate balance between protecting victims’ rights and ensuring fair treatment for the accused.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREEYA S SHEKAR
