In the days leading up to Dillon’s second bench appearance in the trial, the court was already being inundated with calls from both sides asking the judges to decide whether Dillon had a valid reason for the second bench.
This led the judges, who had to be careful not to overrule the bench’s earlier decisions, to say Dillon’s lawyers should not have filed a supplementary affidavit on Monday.
In the affidavit, they stated that the bench was aware of the issue and was in favour of Dillon being discharged.
The court has not yet ruled on the affidavit.
Dillon has already faced three criminal charges in connection with the alleged offence.
A first charge of rape and sexual assault was dropped in August 2016, after the complainant alleged that she had been raped by Dillon on two separate occasions.
Two months later, a second rape charge was dropped and Dillon was granted bail.
The third case is still pending.
Dillon is accused of raping the woman at the hotel where she was staying, while she was on a business trip to Mumbai.
Dillon has denied the allegation.
He has pleaded not guilty and the trial has been postponed several times in the past.
The case has been widely panned, with one critic calling the trial a “scam” and another saying that it was “one-sided” and that the judge should have called for the retrial after hearing evidence that the accused’s lawyer had already said was contradictory.
According to the affidavit filed by Dillon’s lawyer, a letter dated March 28, 2017, was sent by Dillon to the Maharashtra Police Commissioner and the Attorney General of India.
“It is evident that the complainant had given him a false name, claimed that he was her father, that she was a minor, that he had a mental disorder, and that he molested her in the hotel room in the course of the trial,” it said.
On the night of March 29, 2017 the police arrested Dillon for allegedly raping the complainant.
He has been remanded in judicial custody until March 27.
In a statement issued by the court on Wednesday, the prosecution has accused the accused of using the complainant’s own personal details to enter the hotel, in violation of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, a section that has been used to prosecute many men accused of sexual crimes.
It said that the victim’s name, photograph, and a telephone number were printed on the receipt of the Rs 2 lakh cash reward, which was later withdrawn.
The complainant was not told of this money reward until after the court issued the arrest warrant,” the statement said.
“She did not get any information of this reward and did not have access to the reward until April 10, 2017.
This is a serious allegation that cannot be taken lightly.”
Dana Miljoen, a former lawyer who worked for the Delhi Police, said the court should have allowed the trial to proceed even after hearing the defence’s affidavit.
“This is another example of the criminal law being used as a shield for the accused,” he told The Times Of India.
“It is a gross violation of the law and we would have preferred a separate trial to deal with this issue.
At the very least, the judges should have heard the defence lawyer’s affidavit and the defence should have been allowed to appear in court.”