Bombay HC's remark that rape victim 'used to do all dirty things' is depressing

India is not just in denial about its rape culture, it is also helping perpetrators come up with new definitions (read excuses) for rape and sexual violence. And we shouldn't be surprised if it's some day termed legal.

The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a man accused of raping his 17-year-old adopted daughter after considering that the girl “used to do all dirty things” and that her statements were not entirely reliable.

In an order passed two weeks ago, which has come to light now, Justice Sadhana Jadhav released a 52-year-old Andheri resident on a bail of Rs 15,000 with a direction that he would not get in touch with the victim (Yes, he is free to get in touch and touch any other minor, and in whichever way he wants until next time).

The man was in custody for close to 15 months since his arrest in October 2015 following a complaint by the victim. The girl had approached an NGO for help against the foster father who (along with his wife) had adopted her from a protective home.

The accused was released after the court felt that the minor was "inherently abnormal and had sexual instincts from her childhood" based on the victim's background.

Documents attached to the bail application included a statement by the supervisor of the protective home where the victim was living after her biological mother’s death in 2006. According to the woman supervisor, she had observed “unnatural behaviour” besides complaints from other inmates, after which she took the girl in confidence and made her write her life story.

Not surprisingly, the girl's complaint didn't inspire the court's confidence, since the victim's statement didn't appear truthful and there was considerable lapse in filing a complaint.

“The victim had not disclosed the act of the father to the supervisor of the protective home and has complained about it after a considerable lapse of time. The statement of the victim on the basis of which the crime is registered, does not appear to be truthful and therefore, does not inspire confidence of this Court,” the Bombay HC observed.

The insensitive observation of the court isn't surprising considering the fact that in our country it is okay to rape a woman if she was subjected to the crime before. Also, even if a minor is aware of sexual intimacies she is not supposed to speak about it, forget raising her voice when she is subjected to sexual violence.

If the court was so convinced of the minor's "inherently abnormal sexual instincts" and the "environment where she was brought up", is it not the duty of the court to see to it that such environment and atmosphere are not allowed to thrive in future?

Should it not occur to any sensible adult why anyone would want to adopt a girl despite knowing about her "dirty habits" (according to the accused's wife, she thought the girl would change her behaviour after she gets love and education)?

Could it not be a case of paedophiles on the prowl? But then how can we forget India is yet to hear about paedophilia.

It seems the grant of bail has become an excuse to legitimise crime against women and other minorities.

Recently, the Bombay High Court had granted bail to three murder accused (charged with killing a Muslim man), saying that the three did not kill the man over a personal enmity and that they had been provoked “in the name of religion”.

Coming to the 17-year-old rape victim, according to a Mumbai Mirror report, the bail application also added that, initially, when the FIR was lodged, the victim only complained of molestation. But after her medical reports showed that she was not a virgin, she added the charge of sexual intercourse against the accused in a supplementary statement.

If this is what failed to inspire confidence of the court, then minor girls should be given legal lessons on how to proceed with a police complaint. As if mustering courage to speak up is not enough, they are also supposed to know in advance the legal consequences of such delays.

This when only last year, the Hyderabad High Court held that the delay in lodging a rape complaint is not valid ground to vitiate the case of prosecution, more so when the latter has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for the delay.

In the minor's case, did she not deserve a patient hearing? Is it unusual for complainants to change/supplement statements, sometimes also under duress?

What is the guarantee that the man out on bail will not lure any other child and molest her? While the girl's "unnatural behaviour" was so evident to the court, it failed to detect any trace of abnormal and criminal behaviour in the accused.

This could well be a wake-up call for everyone not to ignore tell-tale signs of sexual predators living amid us -- quietly committing crimes without anyone noticing it, if not "bailing" them out.